Create waveform with compiled input and output ports

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Never overwrites' confirms the write behavior, 'Direct original SCF records, no VEC' discloses the output form, and the scf_stimulus_edit/Simulator note explains post-conditions. It does not, however, mention the preview-vs-apply confirmation step.

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?

Three dense sentences with the create action front-loaded and no padding. Efficient, though the telegraphic jargon ('Inputs0 and output observationsX', 'no VEC') reduces readability without wasting space.

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?

No output schema exists, and for an 8-parameter domain-specific mutation tool the description could say more about the confirm/preview semantics and what gets produced. It covers the generation source and the no-overwrite guarantee but leaves the preview-vs-apply workflow to the schema.

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 all eight parameters are documented in the schema (including confirm's preview behavior and edifSha256's freshness requirement). The description only loosely references 'selected or all supported top-level ports' and 'hashed .edo', adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Create a new SCF from selected or all supported top-level ports in a hashed .edo.' This distinguishes it from sibling scf_create by naming the .edo source. Sibling differentiation is implied (compiled ports) but not contrasted explicitly against scf_compiled_ports or scf_ports_import.

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?

Provides a downstream flow hint ('use scf_stimulus_edit then the original Simulator') and a constraint on unresolved nodes, but no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance against scf_create or scf_compiled_ports. Usage is implied rather than framed as a decision.

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