modify_architecture

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'Calls an LLM provider — incurs API costs. Pure function: returns a new spec without mutating the input. Does not deploy.' This informs the agent of side effects and safety.

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 six sentences, well-organized with labeled sections ('When to use', 'Behavior'). Every sentence adds essential information; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return value ('Returns the updated ArchSpec'). It is self-contained and sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description adds value by stating that 'spec_json' is typically the output of prior tool calls and must contain specific keys, which aids agent understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool modifies an existing architecture with natural-language instruction. It specifies the resource (existing ArchSpec) and verb (modify). It also distinguishes from siblings: for from-scratch use 'design_architecture', for multi-turn editing use 'chat_create_session'.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'You already have an ArchSpec and want to evolve it.' Explicit alternatives: 'For from-scratch design, use design_architecture. For iterative multi-turn editing..., use chat_create_session.' This leaves no ambiguity.

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