prepare_component_candidate

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares safety, and the description reinforces this with 'No write or packaging' and 'local text candidate', clarifying that nothing is persisted or packaged. It also discloses a non-obvious invariant not captured by the schema: target must equal baseline. It stops short of explaining what happens on hash mismatch or what the candidate contains.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the invariant plus the safety note follow. Slightly terse phrasing ('No write or packaging') could be read faster as a clause.

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 9-parameter, 8-required tool with near-zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism and one invariant but says nothing about the hashes' purpose, hunk ordering/overlap rules, or what the call returns. An agent would likely need to guess at the hash semantics.

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 only 11%, so the description does real work by explaining that hunks are UTF-16 ranges and that baseline/source/target are the parties involved. But the three hash parameters (baseline_hash, source_hash, target_hash) and environment_profile get no explanation, and start/end inclusivity and hunks ordering are undefined.

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 and resource ('Construct a local text candidate') plus the mechanism ('explicitly selected UTF-16 ranges in reviewed baseline and source'). It does not, however, distinguish a generic 'component' candidate from the many more specific siblings such as prepare_form_candidate, prepare_field_settings_candidate, or prepare_form_row_candidate.

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 a precondition ('reviewed baseline', 'target must equal baseline') but never says when to use this tool versus the other prepare_*_candidate tools or the review_*_three_way siblings, nor does it point at a verification step.

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