Edtb Mxl Compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does reveal meaningful routing behavior (auto/edt-mcp/file strategies and their targets), but it omits what side effects compiling has, whether it writes files, how dryRun affects execution, and what happens on failure. Partial but not rich disclosure.

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 text is short and the most important decision-relevant detail (strategy behavior) is front-loaded. It loses a point for terse, somewhat cryptic formatting (e.g., 'полный DSL → файл' without explaining файл), but there is 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?

The tool has six parameters, three required, a nested dsl object, and no annotations; the description only addresses compilation purpose and strategy. Required parameter meanings, dryRun behavior, projectPath expectations, and the nature of the compiled artifact are absent, so an agent would struggle to construct a valid call.

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 explain parameters. It explains only strategy values; objectName, templateName, dsl, dryRun, and projectPath are never defined, and their relationships (e.g., what subset/full DSL means for dsl) are unclear. This is not enough to invoke the tool correctly with the required parameters.

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?

Description states a specific operation: compile a JSON-DSL into a layout (макет), which is enough to identify the tool's core function and distinguishes it from decompile/info siblings by direction. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete guidance for the strategy parameter: auto routes subsets to modify_metadata vs full DSL to a file, edt-mcp forces proxy, file forces file. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over edtb_mxl_decompile, edtb_mxl_info, or edtb_plan/apply_mutations, leaving tool-selection context implicit.

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