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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about generation behavior, file writes, idempotency, or that the default is a dry-run. The dry-run/write distinction only surfaces in the schema's parameter text, which is not the description's job to be silent about for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single fragment contains no actionable information. There is nothing to front-load because nothing substantive is said.

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 4-parameter code-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what gets generated, where, whether it is safe to run repeatedly, and how it relates to the many sibling planning/preflight tools. An agent has no basis for selecting or invoking it correctly.

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 100% — apply, outputDir, overwrite, and projectRoot are each documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no extra semantic value on top of that.

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 is essentially the tool name restated: 'MediaSFU Kotlin :: app.scaffold (scaffold).' It conveys the SDK namespace but no verb or resource explanation — nothing tells the agent that this generates a project scaffold, what kind, or how it differs from siblings like kotlin::integration.plan or kotlin::env.preflight.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The agent must infer from the name alone whether scaffolding precedes or follows env.preflight and integration.plan.

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