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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description adds context beyond them: it enumerates the artifacts touched (rules files, hook configs, MCP configs) and notes it also handles a credential. It stops short of stating side effects like whether existing files are overwritten, so not quite a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target set, followed by the sibling routing and the return shape. No filler; each clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return values (repo files to write/commit, user files to install, copy-paste snippets). For a single-param setup tool with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents repo_id including the config.json reference. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ("Set up Collide") and resource, and enumerates exactly which agent tools it targets (Codex, Cursor, Windsurf, Cline, GitHub Copilot). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'setup' ("For Claude Code use setup"), so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the condition that selects this tool (non-Claude-Code agent tools in the repo) and names the alternative ('setup') for the Claude Code case. This is a clear when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else routing.

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