Wire a repo to Crave

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

The description says the tool writes to .env, but it omits the central two-phase behavior: the default mode is dry-run and an actual write requires an exact planDigest, with confirmationToken possibly required for certain operations. Because of this omission, an agent may call the tool expecting a write and instead get only a preview.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and follow with the outcome, with no filler. Every phrase 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?

For a tool with a dry-run/apply workflow, a required planDigest, and a confirmation-token field, the description is too thin to orient an agent. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description does not convey the workflow or the fact that the default mode does not actually write.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action and target: writing the public API origin and location ID into an Expo/React Native project .env. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from generic setup tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions.

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 second sentence implies the tool is used when setting up browser and mobile storefronts so they can connect without an API key. However, it never states prerequisites, when to prefer this over other setup tools, or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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