page_code_basis

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

Annotations declare idempotent=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the real side effect that Wenlan re-reads the file, recomputes the fingerprint and flips the row to `ok`, plus the local stdio constraint. It does not describe the response payload, and 'remove: drop the reliance' sits close to the destructive=false hint without clarifying that only the linkage is dropped, not the page.

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?

Short and front-loaded: what it settles, then the two actions, then the identifying fields, then the transport caveat. The telegraphic, backtick-heavy phrasing is dense but every sentence carries information.

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 6-required-param mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers state transitions, alternatives and environment limits. The one gap is what happens on success/failure (return value, whether the row id or new fingerprint comes back).

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% and the per-field descriptions already say 'exactly as read_page returned it'. The description's only addition is that repo_root, path, line_start, line_end are the row's composite identity, which is marginal above the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('settle') and resource ('a code_basis row') plus the precondition states (`pending`, `unavailable`, `moved`) and the required prior step ('after reading the code'). It also names the sibling it is not: write_page, when the page no longer holds.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use `confirm` when the page still holds, rewrite with write_page when it does not, and `remove` to drop the reliance. The triggering row states are named and the 'read the code first' prerequisite is stated.

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