Generate and persist brand names

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It goes beyond a simple mutation warning by detailing the credit cost model ('one per uniquely persisted name, charged only after the rows commit, so a failed run costs nothing'), the idempotency guarantee, and the provenance recording. This gives the agent critical operational knowledge not available in structured fields.

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 dense paragraph with every sentence contributing essential information: purpose, persistence, costs, idempotency, alternative, and scope. There is no repetition of schema content and no fluff. It is front-loaded with the tool's core action and then logically covers side effects and usage nuances.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers most critical context: cost behavior, idempotency, persistence, provenance, and alternative tools. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return value or response shape, which would normally be needed with no output schema, but the mention of 'returns the original result' partially implies the behavior. Overall, it is very complete.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds contextual guidance around `idempotencyKey` ('Always pass a stable idempotencyKey so a retry after a timeout cannot bill twice') and reinforces that `count` corresponds to persisted-name credits, but most parameter-level semantics are already in the schema. It does not meaningfully compensate beyond that.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Generate brand names... and persist them to the project board's generated column with full model, prompt-version, and credit provenance.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `add_name_candidates` by noting the alternative tool is for externally produced names, so there is no ambiguity about its role.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use it when you want Identity Forge to author the names; if your own agent or an offline process produced them, use add_name_candidates instead, which is free.' This names the exact alternative tool and gives a clear decision criterion. It also notes the required `naming:write` scope, which helps the agent determine prerequisites.

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