Create Business Config

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

Annotations indicate no readOnlyHint (so it's a write operation) and no destructiveHint, but the description adds critical behavior: 'Refuses to overwrite an existing file' and 'have them reconnect the extension' (post-requisite). These are non-obvious and valuable. The description does not claim idempotency (annotations say idempotentHint=false), but it explains the overwrite refusal, which is consistent. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and target are front-loaded, and the crucial overwrite constraint is placed second. Every sentence adds necessary information: what it does, what it refuses to do, and the next steps the agent should advise.

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 single parameter and full schema coverage, the description is near-complete. It covers the action, the overwrite refusal, and the follow-up steps. It lacks an explicit pointer to validate the industry via list_industries, but the schema already references that sibling. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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%, including a description for the industry parameter and an enum. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'chosen industry' and 'real details' in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 (writes), the resource (starter business.yaml), and the target location ('folder this server was pointed at'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_industries by being a write operation versus a read/list operation. The agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 implicitly communicates when to use it: after the user has chosen an industry, and before the owner's details are added. It explicitly says it refuses to overwrite, which is a clear constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention list_industries as the source for the industry parameter, which is a minor gap.

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