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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the preflight is side-effect-free and that a valid flag gates registration, which are behavioral facts. However, it omits authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, and what the scaffold contains.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states purpose and return, the second states a sequencing condition. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the jargon reduces clarity. The size and structure are appropriate for a brief preparatory tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is not sufficient to call the tool confidently. It does not explain what CREATE means, what the scaffold contains, how the campaign parameter influences the result, or what happens when valid=false. For a domain-specific preparatory tool, this leaves critical gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'campaign' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description provides no meaning, format, or usage guidance for this parameter. With schema coverage low, the description had to compensate but fails to do so.

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 specific but opaque domain terms ('CREATE', 'scaffold', 'preflight') without defining the action or resource in plain language. It states the return ('complete scaffold plus side-effect-free preflight'), which gives some purpose, but the core action remains ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like preflight_create or create_flow.

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 only usage hint is 'Register only after valid=true, before upload,' which implies sequencing but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool guidance is provided, despite adjacent siblings like preflight_create and register_flow. The agent must infer this is a preparatory step.

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