company_wip

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

With no annotations and a minimally informative description, the tool's side effects, permissions, or data impact are entirely undisclosed. 'Provider effects remain external' is cryptic and does not clarify whether the tool reads, writes, or mutates state.

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 short but not concise in a helpful way; it packs undefined terms and vague phrases into a single sentence. While it avoids verbosity, the lack of clear structure or prioritization of key information undermines its effectiveness.

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 is grossly incomplete: it lacks any definition of core concepts (wip, proofs, lifecycle), does not explain the output schema behavior, and provides no operational context. An agent cannot infer how to invoke or interpret results from this text alone.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for its 7 parameters (2 required). The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'project_id', 'bundle_json', or any other parameter, leaving agents unable to construct valid inputs.

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 'Inspect or advance wip through its scoped lifecycle' uses obscure jargon ('wip', 'scoped lifecycle') without defining the resource or action clearly. It fails to state what 'wip' refers to or what concrete operation is performed, leaving the tool's purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any selection criteria, making it impossible for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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