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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the side effect (saved to zoningHtml), the prerequisite, and the cost. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error handling, but core transparency is good.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the side effect, prerequisite, cost, and return value in logical order. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what it generates, where it saves, the prerequisite, cost, and return value. It could additionally explain failure behavior or how zoning blocks are obtained, but those are secondary.

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 meaningful context by tying node_id to the requirement that zoning blocks exist and clarifying that output is stored in zoningHtml, going beyond the plain schema descriptions.

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 ('generate') and resource ('lo-fi wireframe HTML') plus the target storage field (zoningHtml). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling node management tools like create_node or update_node.

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?

Provides explicit context: a prerequisite (zoning blocks must be defined) and a cost condition (1 AI credit or BYOK). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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