sw_replay_journal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose side effects or conditions beyond the basic operation. It does not mention that file writes are gated by allow_file_writes, that dry_run exists, or how stop_on_error affects replay.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The operation and mechanism are stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a 5-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema, and the one-sentence description is too sparse for its complexity. It omits replay behavior, error handling, file-write implications, and expected outcomes beyond the basic purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters, including path, dry_run, new_document, and allow_file_writes. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not helpful beyond the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Rebuild a model' by 'replaying a journal of operations.' This is clear, but it does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as sw_rebuild or sw_journal.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sw_rebuild or sw_journal, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The usage context is only implied by 'replaying a journal of operations.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.