Rebuild network from a spec

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the exact process: one-pass creation, parameter application, wire resolution by 'from' reference, and fail-forward behavior with warnings. It also clarifies the destructive nature of clear_existing, which is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. No contradictions.

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 structured with a clear opening sentence stating purpose, followed by details on process and return values. It is concise but all sentences carry meaning. Could be slightly tightened, but overall effective.

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?

The description covers the input parameters (parent_path, spec, clear_existing), explains the return value (node names, wire count, parameters set, warnings), and details the fail-forward behavior. It does not explain what happens if the parent_path does not exist, but that is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the spec is processed (nodes in order, parameter setting, wiring) and the effect of clear_existing. It provides context that the schema alone does not, such as the fail-forward behavior.

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 identifies the tool as the rebuild half of a git-diffable round-trip, specifying the action (reconstruct a live network), the resource (from a serialize_network spec), and distinguishing it from its sibling serialize_network. The use of 'REBUILD half' provides strong differentiation.

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 explains when to use the tool: to reconstruct a network from a spec, with fail-forward behavior detailed so the agent knows it can handle partial builds. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the context of 'git-diffable round-trip' and the sibling list imply the counterpart. A small gap is not mentioning not to use for simple creation (use create_td_node instead).

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