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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: work happens asynchronously ('Drafts reach Code updates for review as they are written'), is bounded by a build budget, and runs on the workspace model. It stops short of saying whether the call blocks or how progress is polled.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence about drafts arriving is dense but each clause earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent, no-output-schema build tool, the description tells the agent where results land (Code updates for review), which resolves the main 'what happens next' question. It omits duration/blocking behavior and any link to the approval tools that consume the drafts.

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 both productId and about are already documented and baseline is 3. The description mentions the repo source, model, and budget but adds no syntax or meaning for the two declared parameters (e.g., whether `about` influences extraction quality).

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 (build/start building) and resource (the product's knowledge base) with its source (connected GitHub repositories), which separates it from siblings like retry_product_setup or approve_code_update. Sibling differentiation is present implicitly via the Code updates workflow, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the prerequisites it names (connected GitHub repos, workspace model, build budget) rather than stated as an explicit when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when NOT to run it, or how it relates to approve_code_update / decide_code_update_batch as follow-on steps.

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