workbench_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-behaviors ('does not submit', 'does not consume quota') and a constraint ('including front'). Yet it does not clarify potential side effects of copy/deduplicate, required state, permissions, or failure modes.

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 extremely compact, with the core behavior and the key constraint front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds an important distinguishing fact. No filler or redundancy exists.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a nested views object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It addresses only the views count and the submit/quota behavior, leaving the agent to guess about parameter formats, defaults, return values, and overall invocation semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only adds meaning for 'views' by specifying a count range of 3..8 and requiring 'front'. The other parameters (name, height_m, revision, face_count) remain unexplained, leaving the agent without enough semantic information to set them correctly.

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 the core operation ('Validate/copy/deduplicate') on a specific resource ('3..8 views including front') and clarifies it does not submit or consume quota. This is sufficiently specific to differentiate it from submission-style tools, though the compound verb list makes the exact primary action slightly ambiguous.

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 phrase 'Does not submit or consume quota' implies this is a pre-submission preparation step, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, state when to choose this over workbench_prepare_feature, or describe prerequisites.

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