Connect UWB anchor bus

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context by naming the scaffold components, but it does not disclose side effects such as modifications to the parent COMP or network connections, leaving the openWorldHint unelaborated.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and listing components efficiently. It is appropriately concise for a high-level purpose statement.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves key terms like 'sanitized tag positions' and 'spatial policy' undefined, and does not explain what the scaffold does or what the result looks like. The complexity demands more detail.

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 20% (name and parent_path), so the description should compensate for the other 8 parameters. It vaguely references concepts like adapter source and spatial policy, but does not explain parameter meanings, defaults, or how they affect the scaffold, failing to bridge the gap.

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 clear action ('Create') and resource ('UWB RTLS scaffold'), listing specific components like sanitized tag positions, anchor maps, and spatial policy. This distinguishes it from generic create tools, though it does not explicitly compare it to sibling 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 implies the tool is used to create a UWB RTLS scaffold, giving a basic use case. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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