Declare Typedef

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It tells the agent the operation mutates the local type library, but says nothing about whether re-declaring an existing name replaces it, whether errors arise on conflicts, persistence of the library, or permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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. Every word earns its place and the operation/resource head the sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it omits upsert/conflict behavior, whether the declared type is returned or how the agent would later reference it (e.g. via list_local_types), and any prerequisites such as an open database. The fully covered schema compensates for parameter details but not for behavioral context.

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 100%, so all three parameters (decl, timeout, instance_id) are already documented in the schema, including an example declaration for 'decl'. The description adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb pair ('Declare or update') and a specific resource ('a typedef in the local type library'), so an agent knows exactly what operation and target it is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling tools declare_enum and declare_struct, which is the only gap keeping it from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than declare_struct or declare_enum, no prerequisites, and no note on the upsert semantics beyond the word 'update'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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