make_resource

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions scaffolding four items and delegating to a command, but discloses no behavioral traits: whether it overwrites existing files, if idempotent, error handling, or required permissions. For a generative tool that creates files, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, brief and to the point. First sentence defines purpose effectively. Second sentence mentions delegation to an internal command, which is less valuable for an agent. Could be slightly more efficient by omitting implementation detail, but overall not verbose.

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 the tool creates multiple artifacts (model, migration, seeder, factory), lacks output schema, and has no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what each artifact is, where files are placed, naming conventions, or impact on project structure. An agent lacks sufficient context to anticipate outcomes.

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 has 2 parameters with 50% schema description coverage (name described, softDeletes undocumented). The tool description adds no parameter information at all, failing to compensate for the undocumented softDeletes parameter or provide any additional context beyond the schema.

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 the tool scaffolds model, migration, seeder, and factory in one operation, with a specific verb ('scaffold') and resource scope ('makes:resource'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_model, make_migration, etc. that create individual components.

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 implies usage when wanting to create all four artifacts at once, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like make_model or make_migration. The phrase 'in one go' suggests convenience, but there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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