Scaffold a BeamNG mod

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

Annotations only indicate that the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which already tells the agent it performs a mutation. The description adds 'safe' but does not disclose crucial behavioral traits such as the default dryRun behavior, overwrite semantics, or that it actually creates files/directories. This leaves significant side effects undisclosed.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and clear resource. It is appropriately concise and free of filler. However, given the tool's complexity and the lack of parameter details, a slightly longer description providing key caveats (e.g., dry-run default) would be warranted, so it loses a point for under-specification.

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 8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no description of workflow or file creation behavior, the current description is insufficient for correct invocation. The agent lacks guidance on what 'scaffold' entails, what paths to use, how the overwrite/dryRun flags interact, and how this fits with sibling tools like validate and package.

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 by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not mention any parameters. The agent is left with only parameter names (e.g., slug, destination, modType) and enum values, with no explanation of required format, path interpretation, or relationships. This is a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('safe minimal text-only mod structure') with clear qualifiers ('under the configured workspace'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like beamng_mod_write_files (which writes arbitrary files) and beamng_mod_package (which packages a mod).

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 implies usage for bootstrapping a new mod but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as beamng_mod_write_files or beamng_mod_validate. It also lacks exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., workspace must be configured), leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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