Set test generator source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the write and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the generator is stored 'in a draft' and its role in the workflow, which provides some context but does not significantly expand beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second connects it to the broader workflow. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

With simple parameters, comprehensive schema, annotations covering safety/idempotency, and an output schema present, the description fully equips the agent. It explains the tool's role in the test-generation pipeline, making it complete for 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. It does imply the generator_name is a unique identifier via 'named', but this adds marginal value on top of the schema.

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 'store' with a specific resource ('a named test generator program in a draft'). It is differentiated from related siblings like repovive_build_delete_generator and repovive_build_set_gen_data by explaining that generators are stored for later invocation by the gen-data script.

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 explains the purpose of the stored generator (invoked from repovive_build_set_gen_data), giving clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit connection to the delete generator tool, but the context is sufficient.

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