VibeLign defines 25 tools with schemas and descriptions, but quality is inconsistent. Most descriptions are in Korean and lack LLM-optimized structure (10-50 chars, often imperative rather than explanatory). Schemas are present but many parameters lack descriptions (e.g., checkpoint_restore has only checkpoint_id described). Several tools are marked 'not yet activated' (memory_full_read, memory_write, recovery_apply, handoff_export), reducing effective tool count. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk classifications. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent. Naming is verb-noun compliant but descriptions do not explain WHEN to use each tool or dependencies between them.

• Expand all descriptions to 50-200 characters, explaining WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it (vs similar tools), and any prerequisites. Example: 'checkpoint_create' should say 'Save the current project state before making changes. Call this before risky edits so you can restore if needed.'
• Add descriptions to all parameters. For recovery_apply, document each parameter: checkpoint_id (the saved state to restore), paths (files to restore), confirmation (user approval string), etc.
• Implement tool annotations in the MCP response: mark read-only tools with readOnlyHint=true, destructive tools with destructiveHint=true, and idempotent tools with idempotentHint=true. This enables agents to reason about safety.
• Remove or fully implement the four 'not yet activated' tools. If they are placeholders, delete them from the tool list. If they are planned, implement them with clear activation conditions and full documentation.
• Add error handling guidance to each tool description. Example: 'If checkpoint_id is invalid, returns error with available IDs. If restore fails due to file locks, try recovery_preview first to diagnose.'