Refresh a capsule section

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses important behaviors: it 'Writes to disk and overwrites that section's previous contents', notes recovery is 'only from Git', asserts other sections are untouched, and clarifies it 'Errors when the project or its Capsule is missing'. This gives the agent a full picture of side effects and failure modes.

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?

Four targeted sentences: action, usage condition, side effects/constraint, and error behavior. No redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the purpose, usage, side effects, recovery, and error conditions, which is substantial for a simple update tool. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns on success or failure, leaving a small gap for an agent planning its next action.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about the Capsule and the body content ('never to record a guess') but does not add specific syntax or format details beyond the schema. It doesn't elevate the parameter understanding significantly.

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 opens with 'Replace one section of a project's Capsule' and the title 'Refresh a capsule section', clearly stating the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like recall/search (read-only) and append_decision/append_rule (appending) by explicitly noting 'Read Next is generated and cannot be written here' and framing this as a targeted replacement.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'Use it after the operator confirms something that makes the summary wrong or incomplete', and a clear exclusion: 'never to record a guess'. It also explains that Read Next cannot be written, guiding the agent away from attempting that section. This is strong usage guidance without naming alternatives.

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