Scaffold a resource

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden and does add value: it states writes happen under the resources root or `directory` and that existing resources are never overwritten. This is meaningful safety-relevant behavior beyond the annotations, though it omits auth and return details.

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 focused sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by supported kinds and a key safety guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 scaffolding tool with no output schema, the description covers what is generated, which kinds are supported, where output goes, and overwrite behavior. It does not describe the return value or required permissions, but those are secondary for this kind of creator tool.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description complements it by explaining that kind determines whether a WebUI page or export guard is generated and that `directory` overrides the default root. It does not add much about `name` or `summary`, but the schema already documents those.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('a resource'), and enumerates concrete generated artifacts (manifest, lifecycle handlers, WebUI page or export ownership guard). This clearly distinguishes it from read/search siblings like open77_resource or open77_resources.

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 implies use when scaffolding a new resource and lists the supported kinds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the no-overwrite guarantee and directory scoping give enough contextual guidance.

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