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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some behavioral context (the tune-in-place panel is meant to be wired into the app being built; the standalone kit is the MIT Toolcraft starter) but says nothing about the return shape, how the setup code is delivered, or that the framework argument is ignored for two of the three kinds.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the three branches are enumerated in parallel, readable structure. It is somewhat verbose and re-covers ground already present in the enum descriptions, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It conveys the concept (a control panel, a starter kit, a variant canvas) but never specifies the form of the result — code text, files, install steps — leaving an agent unsure how to consume the response.

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% with both enums fully annotated, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's kind and framework definitions rather than adding new semantics (e.g., output differences per branch), so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb + resource ('Returns setup code for a jig') and the three kind branches are named concretely. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling get-*-guide tools (get-motion-guide, get-design-system-kit, get-widget-guide), so an agent has only the name and the 'jig' framing to distinguish 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 kind-by-kind explanation implicitly tells the agent which branch suits which user need, but the same mapping is already spelled out in the schema's enum descriptions. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling guide tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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