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

Discloses the key destructive behavior directly: 'Overwrites any existing constitution.md,' which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed. It also characterizes the generated file as immutable for later phases, adding useful behavioral context.

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 two dense sentences covering the artifact, contents, overwrite behavior, ordering, alternative tool, and the key parameter. It front-loads the core action before caveats and avoids filler.

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 destructive initialization tool with no output schema, this is complete: it names the file produced, its location, its contents, when to run it, and how to amend instead. Return-value shape is not specified, but it is not needed to call this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met by schema documentation. The description adds real value for projectRoot by explaining it sets both the write location and the root that later phases resolve vdd/ artifacts against, which is beyond the schema's simple 'Path to project root directory'.

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 states a precise action and artifact: 'Generate constitution.md at the project root,' and enumerates what it contains. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the vdd_amend sibling by framing it as Phase 0 initialization rather than amendment.

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 says 'Run this first, before vdd_vision' and instructs using vdd_amend instead of re-running when a constitution already exists. This gives the agent both a positive trigger and a negative exclusion with a named alternative.

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