Generate HLD / LLD

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the dual execution model (server-side model generation vs host-authoring mode returning section briefs), the iterative batching behavior ('a few sections' per call), and the completion signal. It does not mention permissions, cost, or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and execution modes, then moves to the iteration loop and revision path. It is dense but every sentence adds operational value; the conditional mode explanation is slightly tangled but not wasteful.

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 multi-mode, iterative generation tool with no output schema, the description explains both execution paths, the looping protocol, and the revision mechanism - the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. It leaves the return payload shape and how 'complete' is signaled largely 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 83% with all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for sectionIds and feedback (used to revise specific sections) and implies the loop semantics of repeated calls, but adds little beyond the schema's own regenerate and scope documentation.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Generate the design sections') and distinguishes it from archforge_submit_sections by explaining the host-authoring handoff. It doesn't fully clarify how HLD vs LLD generation is selected, though the scope enum in the schema covers that.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: call repeatedly with the same arguments until completion, and use sectionIds + feedback to revise specific sections. The reference to archforge_submit_sections names the relevant sibling, but the trigger conditions among siblings (e.g., when to start vs regenerate) are only implied.

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