Edtb Help Add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: creates a help file, conditionally modifies forms via modify_metadata, and emits a warning if EDT-MCP is unavailable. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or reversibility, preventing a 5.

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 well structured and front-loaded: one-sentence purpose, then side-effect/conditional behavior, then a clear parameter list, then return contract. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers all parameters, default behavior, failure mode, dryRun behavior, and return fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates: every parameter is explained, including defaults, FQN examples for objectName, stub generation for empty html, projectPath fallback to EDTB_PROJECT_PATH, and dryRun semantics.

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 says exactly what the tool does: it adds built-in help to an object by creating Help/<lang>.html in the project object directory. The verb 'Добавить' and the concrete file path/resource distinguish it clearly from siblings, none of which target help creation.

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 operational context: it explains when updateForms triggers form metadata modification, what happens when EDT-MCP is unavailable, and that dryRun returns a plan without applying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool's purpose is unique among siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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