Start local build

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool modifies local repo state (cuts branch and worktree) and serves a preview at a specific path. It lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing worktrees) but provides useful behavioral scope.

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 concise, front-loads the critical note about local-only mode, and separates the alternative flow. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and clear.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context adequately. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., Amendor running) or error cases, but these are minor given the clarity.

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%; the description reinforces the parameter 'id' by showing its use in the preview path (/preview/<id>/), adding meaning beyond the schema's description. It does not add constraints like allowed formats, but is adequate.

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 that the tool starts a local build by cutting a branch and setting up a git worktree served at /preview/<id>/. It explicitly distinguishes from the normal GitHub flow, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (LOCAL MODE ONLY) and when not to (normal GitHub flow), providing a detailed alternative workflow. This gives clear guidance on selection vs. siblings.

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