faf_init

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context: writes file to target directory (created if missing), refuses overwrite unless force set, and returns confirmation. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

Covers key aspects: file creation, overwrite behavior, directory creation, return value, and next step (call faf_score). Despite no output schema, the return value is described. For a tool of this complexity, it is complete.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the force parameter's effect (override refusal) and implying the directory parameter's role (target for writing). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 it creates a project.faf file (IANA-registered context file) with specific purpose (persistent project DNA). It distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_score (readiness check) and faf_sync by detailing its unique role and output.

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?

Explicitly says 'Run once at project start, or with `force` to regenerate, then call faf_score to check readiness.' It also notes the refusal to overwrite without force. However, it does not directly compare with all siblings like refresh_faf, but the intended use case is clear.

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