ddflow_phase_add

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and largely meets it: it reveals that adding a phase triggers its own research, whole-phase test pass, and live smoke run. The globs parameter description adds further behavioral context about parallel-safety and dependency inheritance. It does not cover preconditions, reversibility, or failure behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the behavioral concept, and the usage condition. The verb+object is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 7-parameter tool with a fully self-documenting schema and no output schema, the description explains the domain concept, the trigger condition, and the downstream consequences of the action. The main gap is not explicitly routing the agent to ddflow_task_add for single-task cases and not mentioning session or queue preconditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual framing that enriches understanding of parameters like id ('P2') and body (acceptance criteria), but it does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a phase to the queue') and then defines a phase as 'a unit of REVIEW' that gets its own research, test pass, and smoke run, merging as one coherent feature. This conceptual definition clearly differentiates it from the sibling ddflow_task_add and other workflow tools without 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 final sentence gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Group tasks into a phase when they only make sense shipped together.' This provides clear selection context, though it stops short of naming the alternative (ddflow_task_add) or stating explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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