retarget_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'regenerate the figure,' indicating a side effect, but does not disclose whether the manifest is modified in-place, if permissions are required, or if the operation is reversible. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 a single sentence that directly states the action and its effect, containing no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it highly concise.

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 output schema provides return value details, so the description need not cover that. However, the tool has three parameters and no annotations; the description lacks guidance on when to use it versus siblings and does not explain potential side effects. It is adequate for a straightforward operation but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that target_journal is a 'journal profile' and manifest_id refers to an 'existing manifest,' but it does not address output_dir. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of output_dir explanation leaves a gap.

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's specific action: applying a new journal profile to an existing manifest and regenerating the figure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_figure or edit_figure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a journal profile needs to be applied to an existing manifest, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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