workflow_prepare_delivery_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses core behaviors: verification of clean repo, base branch refresh, preparation_key return, and optional branch creation. Missing details include error handling (e.g., what if repo is not clean) and auth/permissions. The output schema likely covers return structure, but description doesn't reference it.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: set context, state main function and key output, add conditional behavior. No redundant or extraneous information. Efficiency and clarity are excellent.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (references preparation_key) and sibling tools, the description covers essential aspects. It could mention error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., git installed), but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., omitting fields unless user provided). The description adds minimal value by contextualizing repo_path as explicit and delivery_method behavior, but it largely summarizes what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: preparation before delivery workflows. It specifies actions (verify clean repo, refresh base branch, return preparation_key) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact tools that require its output (workflow_issue_to_delivery/workflow_requirement_to_delivery). The verb 'prepare' and resource 'delivery workspace' are specific.

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 explicitly says 'Use before delivery workflows' and names the sibling tools that require the preparation_key, providing clear context for when to use. It also notes the conditional behavior for local_git. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the siblings.

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