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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by indicating the output is deterministic and by enumerating what the blueprint includes. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key usage condition ('after resolving capability names') and then names the blueprint's components, giving maximum information density in minimal space.

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?

The description covers the essential trigger condition and the substance of the output blueprint. Given the presence of a rich output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations describing safety and idempotency, the tool is sufficiently contextualized for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including requiredCapabilities, constraints, and targetVersions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema carries the full burden, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'compose' with a concrete object: a deterministic blueprint covering package, plugin-order, configuration, lifecycle, and compatibility. It clearly states the tool's role in the workflow and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_revogrid_usage or inspect_revogrid_api by framing it as post-capability-resolution planning.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'after resolving capability names,' giving clear sequencing context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the workflow positioning is enough to guide an agent toward when this tool is appropriate relative to siblings.

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