Design Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by disclosing resource loading (inistate://schema and inistate://design-guide) and the pipeline nature, which are not conveyed by annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy: first states purpose, second gives usage trigger, third provides pipeline and prerequisites. Every sentence adds unique value and is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output type ('scaffolded ModuleSchema template') and its role in a larger workflow. Resource loading and pipeline context provide sufficient completeness for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), but the tool description enhances them by specifying the industry mapping behavior and providing detailed guidance on what to include in the 'description' parameter, plus resource loading instructions that affect parameter usage.

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 explicitly states it generates a 'scaffolded ModuleSchema template' from natural language, uses a specific verb ('Generate'), and distinguishes from siblings by outlining the workflow pipeline (design_workflow → validate_design → create_module → get_module_schema).

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?

Clearly says 'Use when the user wants to create a new module or workflow' and provides a pipeline for subsequent steps. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives, but the context is sufficient for decision-making.

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