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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses substantial behavior: LLM decomposition, repo-assignment constraint (never an invented repo), dispatch path, dryRun's non-dispatching semantics, and re-decomposition caveat. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, webhook behavior, or any rate/limit context, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and mechanism, followed by dryRun and the recommended workflow. Dense but each part earns its place; the dryRun guidance is slightly repetitive but not wasteful.

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 complex orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow and the key behavioral caveat well. It is missing explanation of the webhook parameters and any permission/auth framing, but the core decision-relevant content is present.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains specText, repos, and especially dryRun, but leaves webhookUrl and webhookSecret (2 of 6 params) entirely undocumented and only relies on the schema for maxStories. Partial compensation only.

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 (submit), resource (PRD/plan/spec text + repos), and the core mechanism (LLM-decomposes into stories then dispatches via the build_batch path). This distinguishes it clearly from build_batch and other siblings without opening any 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 alternative (build_batch) and gives a recommended workflow: dryRun first, then resubmit via build_batch. It also warns that a second build_from_spec with dryRun:false re-decomposes from scratch and ignores prior edits, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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