dhl_program_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'returns complete program structure...' but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it creates/modifies data), authorization needs, or rate limits. For a design tool, it likely generates output without mutation, but this is not explicit.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the action and target, the second lists key output components. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns but does not provide context about prerequisites (e.g., need for existing school data) or how the output integrates with sibling tools. It is minimally complete for a complex 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing output types, which does not enhance parameter understanding. The schema itself is sufficient, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Design custom mentoring programs for schools and districts.' It specifies the resources (schools and districts) and outputs (program structure, plans, schedules, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like dhl_session_plan (focuses on individual sessions) and dhl_mentor_match (focuses on matching), making it clear this tool handles holistic program design.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dhl_curriculum_align or dhl_mentor_match. It lacks explicit context for best use, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer without direction.

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