Faf Init

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the no-clobber rule on existing files and the path confinement to cwd / FAF_ALLOWED_ROOTS, which is a sandbox constraint the annotations do not express.

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?

Four short sentences plus a parenthetical constraint; the core action and output are front-loaded and each sentence carries a distinct fact (what it writes, the no-overwrite rule, the path sandbox). Nothing is padded, though the constraint sentence could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation's side effects and path safety. Complete enough for a 4-param optional-only tool; only parameter defaults and error behaviour on a blocked path are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names name, goal, and language as the file's content and addresses path both via 'the path is confined to the project root' and the file it writes. It does not explain the defaults or accepted value formats, so it is not fully compensatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a starter .faf file') and names the exact contents (project name, goal, language) plus the output artefact (valid FAF YAML with all required sections). It also routes the agent away from itself toward the sibling faf_discover, so it is distinguishable from the other faf_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('Will not overwrite an existing file') and names the alternative to use for the check ('use faf_discover first'). There is no guidance on when this is preferable to other creation/config siblings such as faf_auto or faf_migrate, but the main precondition is covered.

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