hac_b2b_scaffold_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions demo users and implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, idempotency, or whether existing hierarchy data is overwritten.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary, even though the tool is complex.

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 12-parameter mutating scaffold tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It does not cover required parameters, defaults, side effects, or operational constraints, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 0% across 12 parameters. The description loosely maps to some categories (units, budgets, permissions, demo users) but does not explain required parameters, sub_units format, buyer/approver fields, default_password, or approval_threshold.

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 ('Scaffolds') and names the resource ('B2B organization hierarchy') plus the main components it creates. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as hac_b2b_org_doctor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it creates, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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