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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, explaining the tool returns commands rather than mutating state. It adds useful behavioral context about what the scaffold produces and why copying beats retyping, though it says nothing about prerequisites, side effects if any, or how the returned commands are meant to be run.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the when-to-use rule, then the exclusion. Dense but every clause carries information. The all-caps emphasis is slightly heavy but does not obscure the message.

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 usefully characterizes the return value as exact copy/install/bootstrap/check commands. Combined with the explicit usage conditions, an agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly, though return-format specifics (how commands are presented) remain unstated.

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 appDir, appName, template, and situation are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description adds only the selection hint ('Pass situation and it picks the template; or name one'), which the schema largely covers. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Start a new Tide app from a working template') and immediately clarifies the output ('Returns the exact commands to copy a complete, building app'). It enumerates what the app contains (login, DPoP page and wiring, token/proof verification, realm bootstrap) and explicitly contrasts itself with adding Tide to an existing app, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like tide_onboarding.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('CALL THIS when building a new app, BEFORE writing any auth code') plus the rationale for doing so. It states a clear exclusion ('Not for adding Tide to an existing app') and explains the two selection paths (`situation` vs naming a template). This is close to ideal when/when-not guidance.

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