generate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. Description adds artifact types and usage but no additional behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, return format). Adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and lists types, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 11 parameters (5 with enums) and no output schema, description covers artifact types and usage but does not explain return values or behavior for each artifact type. Adequate for a tool with well-known artifact types, but missing detail that could aid an agent in understanding output format.

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 baseline is 3. Description lists artifact types but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No extra context for enum values or dependencies.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Generate' and resource 'DNS/email security remediation artifact', listing all six artifact types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform checks (e.g., check_spf) or scans, making purpose explicit.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when asked to generate or create a record or policy', providing clear usage context. Does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but sibling set (mostly check tools) makes contrast clear.

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