ecosystem_apply_architecture_md

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits beyond the schema: state transitions (stage_status changes), row completion, and UI retry for failure. This provides comprehensive behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with two clear paragraphs covering success and failure paths. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 no annotations and a moderate number of parameters (4), the description fully covers the tool's behavior, state transitions, and parameter usage. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It is complete for agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conditional relationship between architecture_md and error_message, and reiterates the length requirement (800-1500 characters). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose as 'Stage 1 writeback — submit architecture_md OR report failure.' It distinguishes the success and failure paths explicitly, which differentiates it from sibling ecosystem_apply_* tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the success path (pass non-empty architecture_md) versus the failure path (pass empty architecture_md and error_message). It does not compare to other tools or specify exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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