create_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose idempotency and the transaction marker for rollback identity, which are valuable traits. However, it omits potential destructive effects of updates, permission requirements, and failure modes, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Idempotently creates or updates') and then lists resources. It contains no fluff and efficiently communicates both purpose and a key behavioral trait, earning a perfect score.

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 complex tool with multiple entity types and four parameters, the description covers high-level purpose and one behavioral trait. It does not mention when to use dry_run vs. live mutation (though schema covers that) and lacks return-value context since no output schema is provided. The description is adequate but not fully complete for this complexity.

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 75% (dry_run, idempotency_key, create_missing_folders have descriptions). The description adds contextual meaning by enumerating the entity types that nodes likely represent, but it does not explain the nodes structure or how parameters relate. This aligns with the baseline 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Idempotently creates or updates') with a comprehensive list of resources (folders, scripts, remotes, attributes, tags, scalar/typed properties), clearly distinguishing it from the read-oriented sibling tools. It also adds the unique behavioral detail of a transaction marker for rollback identity, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies that this tool is for creating/updating architecture elements, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like apply_script_patch or rollback_change. There are no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so the usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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