eco_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses that a lockfile embeds an `impact` report, that `out` writes a git-diffable sidecar, and that a malformed ECO 'fails loudly'. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate behavior, but the mutation and side-effect profile is otherwise well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses compact per-parameter lines, so it is easy to scan. It is a touch long and a few parentheticals (issue number, section reference) do not earn their space, but there is little filler.

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 9-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains both the return ('the ECO object, with `impact` when a lockfile is supplied') and failure behavior, which is what an agent needs. Missing only auth/permission context.

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 0%, yet the description documents every meaningful parameter: id, affected list, disposition (with candidate values), effectivity (exactly one of date|serial|revision), title/note, interface_change, lockfile, and out. This fully compensates for the bare schema and even supplies the enum values the schema lacks.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Build an ECO change-order record') and crisply frames its role as recording a change rather than performing a silent mutation, which distinguishes it from mutating siblings like lifecycle_apply_change. The internal jargon '(issue #142, C3)' and '§9 stale trigger' add little for an outside agent, and there's no explicit differentiation from change_impact or eco_validate.

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 notes that where-used impact can optionally be computed 'in the same call' via a lockfile, implying a workflow against change_impact, but never states when to pick eco_create over eco_validate, change_impact, or lifecycle_apply_change. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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