build_quire_project

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose the main behavior (running a build and generating HTML site files), which implies a write/side-effect operation, but it does not mention whether existing output is overwritten, whether a project must already exist, or what a successful run returns.

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?

A single sentence that communicates the action and outcome with no filler. The key verb 'Runs' is front-loaded and the purpose follows immediately.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this minimal description leaves important context unstated: the project must already exist, the build may overwrite html output, and there is no mention of expected errors or success signals. For an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this mutation-like tool, the description is incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The schema's parameter descriptions are present, though somewhat awkwardly worded, so the description itself does not need to compensate.

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 action ('Runs the Build command') and its purpose ('generate html site files'), making it clear this tool compiles a Quire project into static HTML. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings that create, preview, or stop previews.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_new_quire_project, preview_quire_project, or stop_quire_preview. The agent must rely on sibling names and inference rather than any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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