Set up Clarvivo analytics

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

With idempotentHint=true, the description does not contradict the annotation. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool may reuse or create a project and that its result is an exact file and code edit rather than a vague success message. This goes beyond what the annotation alone conveys.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core action, the return value, and the tool-selection guidance with no filler. The most important operational detail, when to use it, is placed at the end of the second sentence but still earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully states what is returned: an exact file and code edit. Combined with the schema-covering parameters and clear usage guidance, the tool is sufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps such as not describing the exact return shape prevent a 5.

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 schema already documents domain, name, and framework clearly. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'for a domain,' so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb chain with a clear resource: detect the repository's framework, reuse or create the Clarvivo project, and return an exact file/code edit. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_install_snippet or verify_installation, and the phrase 'Use this first when asked to add analytics' removes ambiguity.

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 to use this tool first when asked to add analytics, establishing a clear trigger condition and ordering relative to siblings. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the guidance is still unambiguous for the primary scenario.

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