ddflow_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states what gets created (.ddflow/, driver, AGENTS.md section), what does not ('registers nothing else'), and the re-run behavior ('updates a managed block and leaves your own prose alone'), which signals idempotency. This goes well beyond a generic 'Installs ddflow' phrasing.

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 with zero waste: effects, usage cadence, and re-run safety each get exactly one sentence. The most decision-relevant information (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 low-complexity tool (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials: actions performed, when to run, idempotency guarantee, and the next step in the workflow. Minor omissions are the undo path (ddflow_remove exists among siblings but isn't referenced) and what 'driver' refers to, neither of which blocks a correct invocation.

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% — the `agents` parameter is fully documented in the schema with its comma-separated format, accepted values, and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema already carries the detail.

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 and resource ('Install ddflow into this repository') and enumerates the concrete effects: creates .ddflow/, writes the driver and the AGENTS.md section, 'registers nothing else.' The scope is precise enough to distinguish from siblings like ddflow_configure, ddflow_update, and ddflow_remove without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit cadence ('Run this ONCE per project') and names the follow-up tool ('then set your test command with ddflow_configure'). It also resolves the re-run question with 'Safe to re-run.' It stops short of a full 5 because it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus other siblings such as ddflow_update or ddflow_remove.

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