obx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'structural note refactoring' which implies file modifications, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to original files beyond parameter hints. The 'dry_run' parameter suggests preview capability, but this isn't highlighted in the description.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Unified tool for structural note refactoring') and lists the three actions. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the action descriptions.

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 complex 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'refactoring' entails operationally, what the output looks like, error conditions, or how the three actions differ fundamentally. The agent must rely entirely on parameter schemas to understand this tool's behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or action-specific requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 purpose as 'structural note refactoring' with three specific actions (split, merge, extract-section), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit-note' or 'manage-notes', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 lists the three actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit-note' or 'manage-notes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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