bom_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some context by specifying which BOM types are supported for detection vs. add/remove, but it does not disclose important behavioral aspects of a mutation tool, such as whether it modifies the file in-place, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or whether changes are reversible. This lack of safety and side-effect information is a significant gap for a file-modifying operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately states the supported formats. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple with only two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and supported encodings, which is largely sufficient for an agent to understand its use case. It does not explain return values or error situations, but these are less critical given the low complexity and the absence of an output schema. A slightly richer description could mention potential side effects, but overall the information provided is complete enough for basic operation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the action values and adds the encoding support detail, but it does not provide additional meaning about the path parameter or offer examples beyond what the schema already includes. It serves as a confirmation rather than an enhancement.

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 function with a specific verb ('Detect, add, or remove') and resource (BOM in a file). It distinguishes itself from sibling file tools by focusing specifically on BOM handling, and clarifies the supported encodings (UTF-8/UTF-16/UTF-32 detection, UTF-8 add/remove).

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 the tool should be used when a BOM needs to be detected, added, or removed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like read_file or base64_manage, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is inferred rather than directly stated.

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