ocd_mutate_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains path formatting, operation types, and title/summary rules, which are helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects, transactional behavior, permanence, or how the tool interacts with the separate ocd_commit sibling. For a mutation tool, this missing info is a notable gap.

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 long but well-structured with headers, a table, and examples. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line. Every section provides necessary operational detail, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value. Overall it is efficient for the complexity it covers.

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 tool is complex with 4 operation types and nested contentUpdates, and the description covers these thoroughly. However, it omits what the tool returns, error behavior, and how it relates to the ocd_commit sibling (e.g., are changes staged or immediately applied?). These omissions are significant given the lack of output schema and annotations.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: the operation type table clarifies required/optional fields, the path prefix rule is critical, the title/summary composition rules with examples are provided, and contentUpdates operation types are explained in detail. This significantly enhances correct parameter usage.

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 'コンテキストを変更 (create/update/delete/move 一括実行)' which explicitly states the tool changes context and can execute multiple mutation operations in batch. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read/search/list tools by being the dedicated write tool.

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 states '全ての書き込み操作を単一のツールで実行可能' (all write operations can be executed in this single tool), strongly implying this is the tool to use for any context mutation. It provides detailed operational constraints like path must start with Context Root id and required fields per operation type, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are read/commit focused, making the usage context clear.

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