setup_vision_and_audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that this is a local-folder write. It says nothing about overwrite/merge semantics for existing vision or audience values, whether a project must already be initialized, permission or path requirements, or what the tool returns on success.

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, and the enumeration of fields comes before the destination. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that behavior-critical details were omitted rather than compressed.

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?

This is a five-parameter disk-mutating setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain write semantics and failure conditions itself. Instead it leaves overwrite behavior, prerequisites, and return values entirely unstated, which is inadequate for a tool that persists project configuration.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description does enumerate all five inputs and flags promise and owner_name/owner_email as optional, but that duplicates the schema's required list, and it adds no format, length, or constraint detail beyond what vision and owner_email already document.

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?

Specific verb plus enumerated resources: "Write vision, audience, optional promise and owner contact" and a stated destination, "the local project folder." That distinguishes it from setup_brand, setup_voice, and setup_channels by naming exactly which fields it captures, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_setup.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: no mention of whether get_setup should be called first, whether an existing vision is replaced, or how this fits with the sibling setup_* tools. Only the word "optional" hints at which inputs may be skipped, and that is already conveyed by the schema's required list.

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