new_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does disclose the preview-only default and necessary preconditions, which is useful, but it does not state whether actually creating the stage replaces or destroys the current stage, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately follows with the critical preconditions and default behavior.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and the main prerequisites are stated. However, for a tool that can create a stage, the description omits the impact on the current stage and the purpose of two parameters, so an agent still has meaningful uncertainty.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for preview, scratch_stage, and scratch_root, but it leaves command_id and idempotency_key unexplained, making the compensation incomplete.

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 the action precisely with 'Preview or create' and identifies the resource as 'a new empty stage', which clearly differentiates it from sibling stage tools like open_stage or save_stage_as. The verb and target are 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?

It provides clear usage conditions: scratch_stage=true, scratch_root, and a stopped timeline are needed, and the tool defaults to preview-only. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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