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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it returns 'useful partial matches and honest gaps' rather than failing outright, and it clarifies that email is a contact hint, never authentication, forestalling a common misuse. It stops short of describing auth requirements or persistence semantics for flowId.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by resume semantics and the email caveat. The stack enumeration is a long list but earns its place by scoping what 'assemble' covers.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return behavior loosely and two of three parameters, but leaves goal undocumented and gives no sense of the response shape or flow lifecycle beyond 'partial matches and gaps'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing. The description rescues flowId ('resume the existing flowId and pinned stack') and email ('contact hint, never authentication'), but the goal parameter is left entirely unexplained despite being the obvious primary input.

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 and resource: 'Consult Kloudy to assemble or improve a project' with a concrete list of stack categories. It doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like kloudy_build_answer or kloudy_build_state, but the assembly/start intent is legible.

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?

'Resume the existing flowId and pinned stack' implies this is the entry/resume point of a build flow, which is useful context. However, it never says when to pick this over kloudy_build_answer or kloudy_build_state, leaving the routing to inference.

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