nds_mutation_build

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'verified' and 'controlled' but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens to the input ROM or filesystem. For a build/mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, constraints, and method without waste. Every phrase adds meaning.

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 tool is a mutation builder without annotations or output schema. The description omits prerequisites, meaning of 'verified', and implications of the mutation process, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke without further context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'manifest' parameter via 'strict workspace manifest' and possibly 'rom' via 'staged source copy', but does not explicitly map or explain either parameter. Both parameters are required and remain under-explained.

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 a specific verb ('build') and identifies the resource ('NDS mutation') from a source ('strict workspace manifest', 'controlled staged source copy'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling validation/verification tools like nds_mutation_validate and nds_mutation_verify.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: building a mutation from a strict workspace manifest using a staged copy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the workflow implication is strong.

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