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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses that the tool returns no credential, issues no API key until an account exists, and that signing in is 'the one step you cannot do for them.' This adds meaningful side-effect and auth-flow context beyond the structured fields, with no contradiction.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by explaining the no-credential workflow and the claim URL handoff. It runs slightly long but the length is justified given the unusual no-credential auth flow it must explain.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the side effects, the return value (claim URL), the auth limitation, and how to populate intent and platform. The only gap is the platform-enum discrepancy, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 some value by instructing to say the platform and the business needs in the human's own words, reinforcing the intent and platform parameters. However, it lists the platform enum without 'codex' (which appears in the schema), creating a minor inconsistency between the description and the schema's parameter definition.

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 states a specific verb ('Composes a pending workspace'), the resource (the build's application, capability families, origin), and the concrete output (a claim URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like trustycap_route_build and trustycap_compose_kit by anchoring to a specific trigger: 'the moment you decide TrustyCap fits and before you write any code against it.'

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 opening sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this the moment you decide TrustyCap fits and before you write any code against it') and clarifies that planning, routing and composing can proceed without a credential. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the timing condition is clear and actionable.

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