Generate Set Workspace Node Template

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by stating SQL override controls are removed because they are disallowed, which is additional transparency. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds unique information without redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, two modes, output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral context and usage guidance. Output schema is not described but is provided separately, and the description compensates for any gaps in parameter interaction understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that nodeType is used differently in repo vs raw mode, and that repoPath has a fallback chain. This contextualizes parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 generates a YAML-friendly set_workspace_node body template in two modes: raw node definition or repo commited type. It differentiates from some siblings by mentioning the use of corpus tools, but does not explicitly distinguish the closely named sibling 'generate_set_workspace_node_template_from_variant'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use repo mode vs raw mode, and mentions fallback to corpus tools. Also notes SQL override controls are removed due to project constraints. However, does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or direct to alternative sibling tools.

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