Generate a complete CRUD resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it can overwrite existing files only when overwrite=true, and enumerates the exact files generated. It does not mention prerequisites or failure modes, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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 sentences and front-loads the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every phrase contributes information, making it compact and efficient.

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 tool is complex, generating multiple file types, yet the description omits details on field specification and naming conventions, which are only partially covered by the schema. It also lacks any mention of return values or post-generation steps, making it adequate but not 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?

The schema defines 5 parameters, but the description only explains the overwrite parameter's requirement. It does not add meaning for resourceName, fields, withTests, or withRepository, leaving their syntax and semantics to the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'generates' and identifies the resource as a full CRUD scaffold, enumerating concrete components (Controller, Service, Repository, Entity, Migration, tests). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that scaffold individual components.

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 states it generates the full CRUD of a PHP resource, implying use when a complete scaffold is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling scaffold_* tools or state when not to use it.

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