Edtb Form Compile

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'compilation' without disclosing whether this mutates anything, whether it produces a plan or applies changes, what side effects occur, or what the output represents. The schema's dryRun parameter hints at planning behavior, but the description does not state it.

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 with no filler. The core purpose appears immediately, and the parenthetical adds useful specificity without bloat.

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 schema and output schema cover inputs and outputs reasonably well, so the descrition is minimum viable for a straightforward compile action. However, with no annotations and a complex nested DSL parameter, the missing relationship to plan/apply siblings and the lack of side-effect context leave a real completeness gap.

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 83%, so most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema. The description adds a small hint about DSL variants (GAP-FORM-DSL/BATCH/PRESETS), but does not meaningfully explain parameters such as mode, dryRun, or objectName beyond what the schema provides.

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 a clear action — compiling a form from JSON-DSL — and names the source format explicitly, including useful DSL variants. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools, but the verb-resource pair is specific enough to be understood.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like edtb_plan_mutations or edtb_apply_mutations. The schema implies dryRun/mode behavior, but the description itself gives no use-case context, exclusions, or decision rules.

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