Renumber project

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value beyond them: 'One undo step' discloses reversibility, and the portfolio clause explains that task numbers are preserved per project while only WBS codes are pulled. It does not discuss cost on large projects, but the behavioral picture is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the menu equivalence, then the trigger conditions, then the portfolio edge case and undo cost. Every sentence carries information, though the menu-equivalence clause is slightly redundant with the opening verb.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a zero-parameter mutation the description supplies what matters: what changes, when to run it, portfolio-specific behavior, and undo cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The mention of portfolio vs. single-project behavior is contextual rather than parameter-related.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Renumbers the project') and immediately concretizes it: pull WBS codes into a gapless sequence, align task numbers with WBS order, normalize the structure. The 'same function as the Renumber menu' anchor makes the effect unambiguous even for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions tied to named siblings: 'Worth doing after rillsoft_project_sort or after many rillsoft_element_move calls.' That is real routing guidance, but there are no when-not conditions or warnings about cases where renumbering would be undesirable.

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