generate_load_combinations

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds substance beyond that — that existing combinations are preserved, new ones are appended as cLCB1, cLCB2, and that existing analysis results are discarded. The unexplained gap is the preview/apply handshake, which is the mechanism behind the destructive gating.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the kind breakdown, then behavioral notes — a sensible order with little waste. The mid-sentence line breaks are awkward but don't obscure meaning.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what persists, and roughly what is returned. Missing is any description of the preview step and confirm_token semantics, which an agent needs to invoke this tool safely and 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 carry the load. It does well for 'kind', mapping each enum value to a code standard and target table, and implicitly covers 'product' via the Gen-only note. 'confirm_token' is never mentioned at all, leaving a required-for-safety parameter undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Have NX add its KDS design load combinations' — and explains where they land (LCOM-CONC/LCOM-STEEL/LCOM-SRC). It also scopes the tool to Gen NX, which separates it from anything a Civil-only workflow would call.

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?

States the two-step preview-then-apply workflow and an explicit exclusion ('Gen NX only: Civil NX has no such command'), which is a real when-not rule. It stops short of naming which sibling tool performs the preview step or how the confirm_token gates the second step.

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