push_down

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses output format (editsByFile with warnings), that edits are returned as text (not applied), and the use of zero-based coordinates. It covers prerequisites and behavioral context well.

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 brief yet comprehensive, front-loading purpose, usage, output, and important notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 explains output and prerequisites adequately for a refactoring tool without an output schema. It could mention type hierarchy requirements but is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond reinforcing zero-based coordinates and the 'member name' context; nothing significantly new is provided.

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 tool pushes a method or field down into subclasses and removes it from the superclass, using specific verbs and resources. This distinguishes it from siblings like pull_up or extract_superclass.

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?

The description provides usage instructions ('Position on the member name in the superclass') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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