amplify_global_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'manage' without detailing effects like whether adding a pattern immediately affects projects, required permissions, or side effects. The op enum in the schema hints at operations, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise without unnecessary words. While it could be more informative, it avoids verbosity and is well-structured.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the two operations (get/add), the required fields, or the behavior of adding a pattern. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks high-level context for effective use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like 'applies_to' work or provide examples. It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 it manages cross-project patterns, which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like amplify_promote_pattern (which likely promotes individual patterns) by focusing on global application. However, 'manage' is somewhat vague and does not specify the exact operations (get/add) that the schema provides.

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 gives context that this tool is for patterns applying to all or multiple projects, which implies when to use it. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., amplify_promote_pattern). The usage is implied but not clarified with exclusions.

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