scf_generate_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It openly states that the operation is a write, requires an admin role, is queued asynchronously via task_id, and skips existing documents unless force is set. It does not detail failure modes or downstream effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and role, followed by the return/polling contract and the force behavior. Every sentence carries essential information and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the key operational context: it is asynchronous, returns a task_id, directs to the status tool, and explains the skip/force behavior. The schema covers the required parameters and value sources, so together they give an agent enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 is 3. The description reinforces force semantics and the idea of multiple generators, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The skip/force wording mirrors the force property description rather than adding novel information.

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 states a specific action ('Queue ISMS document generation') on a specific resource ('one or more generators') and clearly distinguishes the tool from the related status-polling sibling by naming scf_get_document_generation_status. It also flags the write and admin-role nature, which differentiates it from read-only document tools.

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 an explicit post-call workflow: returns a task_id and tells the agent to poll the status tool. It also explains the force/skip behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for listing existing documents, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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