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

Beyond the all-false annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: deterministic byte-for-byte output, value encoding rules, quota consumption ('Uses one spec from the quota'), and default file placement at the repository root. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, but nothing contradicts the annotations, and the quota note aligns with the non-idempotent hint.

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 dense sentences cover the core transformation, determinism, value encoding, defaults, target location, and quota cost with no filler. The list of specification areas is long but earns its place by conveying the full scope of the generated output.

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 nested answers, enums, no output schema, and quota side effects, the description covers most operational facts: what is generated, which files are returned by default, where to write them, and the quota cost. The main gap is that the return shape (e.g., mapping of file name to content) is not specified, but the default file names and 'returns the requested files' provide enough orientation for an agent.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already describes files and answers, but the description adds crucial semantics for how answer values must be encoded (single option value, array for multiselect, boolean, number). It also clarifies the files default. The required 'type' enum is not further explained, though the enum itself is fairly self-descriptive.

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 precise transformation: questionnaire answers into a complete build specification and matching agent files. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_questionnaire or draft_answers, which collect or edit answers rather than generate the spec output.

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 description implies this is the post-questionnaire generation step ('Turns questionnaire answers...') and describes default files and quota behavior, but it never explicitly names when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The prerequisite of having answers from get_questionnaire is implied rather than stated as a routing instruction.

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