create_resources

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that multiple files are created and that routes require an extra step, but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), prerequisites, or error handling.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately clarifies a critical limitation. No extraneous words.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the agent should expect after execution (e.g., success message, file paths) or highlight default behaviors (e.g., soft_deletes default false). The schema descriptions fill some gaps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to any parameter; it only summarizes the tool's action. This is adequate given the schema richness.

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 explicitly states 'Scaffold Model, Controller, Service, and Migration', clearly specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_route' by noting that routes are not auto-wired, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Routes are NOT auto-wired - use create_route after.' This tells the agent when not to rely solely on this tool and directs to an alternative. However, it does not elaborate on other scenarios where this tool should or should not be used.

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