pull_up

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: output structure (editsByFile covering superclass and subclass), warnings from condition checking, and that edits are returned as text (not automatically applied). Also notes zero-based coordinates, which is important for correct invocation.

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?

The description is structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, output, important note) and is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise with only necessary details, though 'USAGE' and 'OUTPUT' could be slightly condensed.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how to use it (positioning), prerequisites (load_project), output format, and the need to manually apply edits. No output schema exists, but the text description suffices for an agent to understand the consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the coordinate system ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates') and the semantic meaning of line and column ('Position on the member name in the subclass'), which is beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Pull a method or field up into the superclass') and the effect ('remove it from the declaring subclass'). It specifies the resource (superclass) and distinguishes from related tools like 'push_down' implicitly through the naming.

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?

Provides explicit usage instruction: 'Position on the member name in the subclass.' and prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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