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

The description discloses that the tool does not re-measure or re-score and consumes a completed Reflection. Annotations (`readOnlyHint=false`, `destructiveHint=false`) suggest mutation and non-destructiveness but the description adds context about the relationship with `reflect`. However, it does not detail side effects, error behavior, or output format.

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 two sentences plus a concise imperative instruction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and outputs, then adds constraints and relationship to `reflect`. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters including a nested object, no output schema. The description explains prerequisites, conditions (must be finished), and the nature of consumption. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but given the sibling context and schema richness, it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the prerequisite (`briefId` must be from a completed Reflection) and ties `options` to specific `kind` values, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema's own descriptions for each parameter.

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 generates Mirror Studio output from a completed Reflection, listing four specific kinds. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `reflect` by noting this tool consumes a completed Reflection and never re-measures or re-scores.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (`briefId` from `reflect`), clarifies that it consumes a completed Reflection and does not re-measure, and instructs to run `reflect` first if no `briefId` is available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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