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

Annotations already cover safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds only the action 'Create' and source, with no extra behavioral context such as whether the build is asynchronous, how long it takes, or failure modes. It does not contradict annotations.

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, direct sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain typical return values (e.g., build ID) and next steps (e.g., use scalix_build_status to track progress). It does neither, leaving a clear gap for a create-type tool.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Git repository or Dockerfile' aligns with git_url and dockerfile parameters but does not clarify their relationship (e.g., dockerfile is a path inside the repo). It adds little beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('container image build') with a stated source ('from a Git repository or Dockerfile'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like scalix_build_status, which is for checking build status.

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 implies when to use (when creating a build) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. There is no mention of the complementary scalix_build_status tool for monitoring the created build, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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