allocate_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes three modes (preview, reserve, reclaim) and notes auto_track behavior for reserve mode. It does not mention destructive actions, rate limits, or authorization needs, but the description is detailed enough for an agent to understand core behavior.

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 well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and mode, followed by parameter details and examples. While somewhat long (200+ words), every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in path examples could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 explains the parameters and modes thoroughly, but it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., allocated IDs or status). Since there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness. The description is sufficient for invocation but lacks outcome details.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the description provides all parameter meaning and constraints. It explains each required and optional parameter with types, default values, and examples. This adds essential semantics 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's purpose: 'Preview, reserve, or reclaim object IDs for AL development.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools (analyze_workspace, authorization, config) which cover different operations.

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 provides clear required parameters (mode, appPath, object_type) and gives example paths. It implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when managing object IDs), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. However, given the distinct sibling tools, this is sufficient.

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