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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Never publishes to Commons' is one useful behavioral disclosure (mutation scope limited to private build space). But with 7 params and no annotations, the description doesn't state auth requirements, whether the build is mutable after creation, what idempotencyKey does, or what the response returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, but also no information density to speak of. Concise but underspecified rather than tightly informative.

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 mutation tool with 7 undocumented params, no annotations, no output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot invoke this correctly — it doesn't know what 'spec' should contain, what auth is needed, or how idempotency works.

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 0% and 7 params are entirely undocumented. The description adds zero parameter semantics — nothing about what 'spec', 'agentLabel', 'idempotencyKey', 'clientInstanceId', or 'signature' mean. With low coverage (<50%) the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 (Create) and resource (a playable bounded Spark Relay build) — but 'Spark Relay build' is domain-specific jargon that's not explained, and the description doesn't distinguish this from sibling wilds_create_chronicle or wilds_test_build in any functional way. The purpose is nominally clear but the resource type is opaque to a new agent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The 'never publishes to Commons' line hints at a boundary with wilds_publish_scenario. But it doesn't name alternatives or conditions for choosing this vs wilds_test_build. The one-sentence constraint is the only usage signal.

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