build_variant_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes a 'Caveat' section detailing partial failure behavior and the lack of auto-rollback, which is useful. It also explains the composition order and single save at the end. However, it could be more explicit about side effects like saving the document.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose line, args section, returns, caveat, and example. Each section adds value, though the arg descriptions could be slightly more concise. The caveat is particularly important and 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?

Given no output schema and the tool's complexity (composing multiple operations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, all parameters with constraints, return format, failure behavior, and provides an example. The caveat addresses real-world usage concerns.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for each parameter: constraints for variants (non-empty, >0), meaning of parent_config, and requirement that activate_at_end must be a key of variants. This far exceeds the schema's basic type info.

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 verb ('Crear una familia de configuraciones') and resource (cambiando una sola dimensión). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it composes create_config, activate, and modify_dimension into a single macro, which is a higher-level operation than individual tools like create_configuration.

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 provides a junior workflow example but lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for multi-variant creation along one dimension, but does not explicitly contrast with using individual tools for a single variant. More directive guidance would improve agent decision-making.

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