legal_put_generator_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: the conditional regeneration side effect ('if active') and the cvrt-legal 0.8.0+ version prerequisite for accessibility libraries. However it does not say what happens to an existing library, whether the import is reversible, or what errors occur on version mismatch.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its side effect, then inputs, then the prerequisite. No filler, though the version-requirement sentence is slightly compressed into a run-on clause.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, inputs, and a key prerequisite but leaves out what 'active' means, what regeneration terminates/overwrites, and the failure mode when the site's cvrt-legal version is too old.

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% so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it clarifies the two mutually exclusive input modes (inline library vs library_file) and gives a concrete example path. It also implicitly flags the accessibility flag's semantic dependency that the schema only captures as an enum value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Import the text library of a generated document') and adds the consequential effect 'and regenerate it if active'. It is distinguishable from the sibling legal_get_generator_library (the read counterpart) and legal_put_generator (the document getter/putter), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives practical input-mode guidance ('Give the library inline or as library_file') and a prerequisite for the accessibility flag, which implies when the tool is usable. But it never states when to prefer this over legal_put_generator or legal_put_generator_library alternatives, so the usage context remains implied.

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