mod_sweep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context: it only adds the modifier and does not handle custom sections. It does not contradict the destructive hint, and the 'only adds' phrasing gives agents a precise boundary of behavior.

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 short, front-loaded, and each sentence carries meaning: what the modifier does, what the tool does not do, and which sibling to use for custom sections. The bilingual duplication is efficient for the intended audience and not wasteful.

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 simple two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation, the limitation, and the alternative. Minor omissions such as default modifier naming behavior are left to the schema, but the essential calling context is present.

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%, with both `name` and `objects` documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('sweep') and resource ('sweep modifier'), and clarifies that this tool only adds the modifier. It explicitly distinguishes itself from model_sweep, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: use this tool for the standard sweep modifier, and use model_sweep with a `section` name for custom sections. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to the most relevant sibling.

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