Set up Verbaly in a project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does valuable work by stating it writes files and that existing files are kept rather than overwritten, which tells the agent the operation is safe to re-run. It says nothing about permissions, partial-failure behavior, or whether the detection step can fail independently of the file writes.

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-loads the two concrete effects (config + catalogs) and the detection outcome, then adds the overwrite policy and the trigger condition. The first sentence is dense and clause-heavy, but no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, side effects, overwrite policy, and the trigger condition. Only failure modes and permission requirements are left implicit, which is a modest gap for a file-writing setup 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (dir, root, locales, sourceLocale) are already documented in the schema and the description correctly does not repeat them. It adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as how locales and sourceLocale interact, which is the baseline case.

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 specific verbs and resources: creates the config file and locale catalogs, and detects the bundler/meta-framework to name the package and wiring line. This clearly separates it from siblings like verbaly_doctor (diagnoses) and verbaly_wrap (wraps code), and the CLI equivalence anchors the intent.

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?

"Run this when doctor says there is no config" gives an explicit trigger and names the sibling that produces it, so the agent knows the entry condition. It stops short of stating when NOT to run it (e.g., if a config already exists), but the overlap is implicitly handled by the non-overwrite note.

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