Organise longer writing

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: a merge rule ('parts it has already and you leave out stay, after them'), batch atomicity ('One change, undone in one go'), and auto-creation of missing type fields. It stops short of describing permissions or the response, but it meaningfully exceeds what the annotations supply.

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?

It is compact and contained in one paragraph with no filler, but the clauses are telegraphically garbled ('parts it has already and you leave out stay, after them'), which forces re-reading. The core behavior is not cleanly front-loaded; clarifying structure is sacrificed for brevity.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the important missing pieces: merge/overwrite semantics, atomicity, field auto-creation, and a prerequisite setup step. Error and permission behavior remain unaddressed, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents piece, parts, type and material including the ordering and 'for' scoping conventions. The description mostly echoes those semantics ('Give the piece and its parts in reading order', material 'for the whole or for one part') rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific operation (organise a piece into ordered parts plus associated material) with the concrete metaphor of a book of chapters, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from plain mutations like update_record because it deals with ordered part composition. The convoluted phrasing keeps it short of a clean 5.

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?

It gives one real precondition ('Make the parts with create_record before') and hints at the undo_change relationship ('One change, undone in one go'), which is useful context. However it never says when to prefer this over the many other arrangement/mutation siblings (add_arrangement, update_record), so the guidance is only partial.

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