bgi_create_onedragon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the key write-time invariant (filename and JSON Name field are forced to the same value), the duplicate-name rejection and why it exists (BetterGI otherwise matches one at random), and the Ordinal exact-match behavior of startOneDragon. It stops short of describing permissions or what the tool returns.

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, front-loaded with the action, then a clearly marked caveat about name matching. Dense but every clause carries operational information; no 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is created, the naming invariant, and duplicate handling — the parts an agent could get wrong. It omits success/return behavior and environment prerequisites, which is a modest gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that `config` becomes both filename and Name field and that the CLI matches by the JSON Name with Ordinal comparison — runtime semantics the schema's one-line description does not convey. The `from` default and `overwrite`/`dry_run` behavior remain in the schema rather than the description.

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 (新建「一条龙」配置) plus the two creation modes (copy an existing config or start from an empty template) and optional task ordering. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bgi_set_onedragon or bgi_add_group_to_onedragon, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 creation scenario is clear, but the description never states when to prefer this over bgi_set_onedragon (modify) or bgi_add_group_to_onedragon, nor does it mention prerequisites such as BetterGI needing to be running. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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