build_remoteconnect_logic_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, and it does so well. It reveals that the paired logic file is opened without saving in place, that output_path is not written on edit/build failure, and that the application is closed without saving on failure. This gives the agent important side-effect and failure-mode information.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows with essential parameter and failure details. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition. The structure makes it easy for an agent to grasp the safety-critical behavior quickly.

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 with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to be thorough. It covers the most distinctive parameters and failure behavior, but leaves required parameters task, section, and st_source unexplained. This creates enough ambiguity that an agent may not correctly construct a valid invocation without additional inference.

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 description adds meaning for source_path, output_path, variables, and declare, which is valuable given 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain the required task, section, or st_source parameters beyond their names, leaving a significant semantic gap for a complex tool with eight parameters.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented statement: 'Safely edit ST logic and save only after a clean build, always to a copy.' This clearly identifies the verb (edit/save), the resource (ST logic), and the distinguishing constraint (always to a copy). It differentiates the tool from siblings like write_st_logic or build_project by emphasizing the copy-and-safety behavior.

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 gives clear operational context: source_path can be any member of a RemoteConnect bundle, output_path must be new unless overwrite=true, and failure closes the application without saving. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the copy-safety intent makes the use case reasonably clear. This is just short of full routing guidance.

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