Enhance the app description into a master prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool advances the project to the interview phase (a side effect). It also describes the return value structure. It does not mention idempotency or error conditions, but the disclosed mutation is a significant addition beyond generic 'enhance' semantics.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the workflow position, the second lists inputs, outputs, and side effects. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core: what it does, what it returns, and its side effect. It omits prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) but the workflow context and sibling tools provide sufficient completeness for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain that projectId identifies the project whose description is analyzed, but the phrase 'the project description' indirectly links the parameter. Since there is only one obvious parameter with a clear name, the gap is minor, but the description adds no direct semantic detail.

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: it analyzes a project description against a checklist, returns a master prompt skeleton and gap list, and advances the project phase. The specific verb 'analyzes' and the detailed outputs distinguish it from sibling tools like get_next_questions or generate_blueprint.

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 explicitly labels this as 'Phase 1 of the App Factory workflow,' providing strong context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow phase makes the intended usage clear.

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