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

Annotations already disclose open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it may consume shared usage, returns reference material rather than evidence or requirements, and explicitly rules out recursive crawling or arbitrary execution. It does not cover authentication or error behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid addition.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, cost caveat, output boundary, and execution limits. The core purpose is front-loaded, and nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter URL fetcher with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it collects, what it returns, cost, and execution limits. Annotations already handle safety hints, so the remaining minor gaps (auth requirements, rate limits) do not make the definition inadequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It constrains the single `url` parameter to 'one public HTTPS reference page,' implying the expected protocol and page type beyond what the bare schema provides. It stops short of fully documenting URL format or allowed query patterns, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'collect bounded text from one public HTTPS reference page.' It also distinguishes the output from sibling concerns by noting it returns reference material, never client evidence or approved requirements, so an agent can tell it apart from review_requirements and schema tools.

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?

Usage context is implied by constraints (one public HTTPS page, bounded text, no recursive crawl), and the description excludes client evidence and approved requirements. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus a sibling or name an alternative, so guidance remains implicit rather than directive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it explicitly discloses that the tool returns contents without saving or running SQL, which resolves the apparent tension of a "create" tool being read-only. It doesn't cover permissions or failure modes, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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 compact clauses with no filler; the core action leads and the behavioral constraints follow. Efficient, though the final sentence ("Adapt to project requirements before export") is slightly process-narrative rather than tool description.

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 readOnly annotations and absence of an output schema, the description is adequate on behavior, but it omits where template_id comes from (list_templates) and what project refers to, leaving two required-ish parameters unexplained for an agent trying to invoke this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the accepted database values (postgresql, mysql, sqlite), but leaves template_id and project completely undefined in both schema and 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+resource ("Create a native schema for a project") and names the supported database dialects, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like validate_schema or export_sql. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the 5 level.

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?

"Returns contents, does not save or run SQL" implies usage context and rules out persistence, distinguishing it implicitly from save_project. However, it never states when to prefer this over validate_schema or export_sql, or the parent workflow step, leaving usage to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the required Java/Jakarta stack target, the convention that FKs are emitted as scalar fields, and a caution that output must be reconciled with the existing project's versions and ORM before adoption.

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 tight sentences with the output type front-loaded, no boilerplate. The second sentence about checking versions/ORM is compressed and slightly ambiguous ('adopting files'), but it carries real information rather than 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 code-generation tool with no output schema and an undescribed nested input object, the description covers the what but omits the how — package naming, what happens to the generated files, and how the schema object maps to entities. Adequate as a summary, incomplete as an operational spec.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions either parameter. The 'schema' input (an open object with nested content) and the 'package' parameter — two of the most consequential inputs for naming and classpath layout — are left entirely unexplained in both structured and unstructured fields.

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 gives a specific verb (generate) and highly specific resource (Java 17+/Jakarta JPA entities and Spring Data repositories), including a notable implementation detail (scalar FK fields). It is clear what is produced, but it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling export_sql, so an agent must infer the routing from the target language alone.

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 only guidance is 'Check the existing project's versions and ORM before adopting files', which is advice about post-generation review, not about when to choose this tool over export_sql or the template tools. There is no stated precondition, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lowered, yet the description still adds real context: it emits DDL text only and never executes SQL, and it will not produce a migration for an existing database. It does not say how the output is returned or whether dialect selection is inferred, but the behavioral picture is solid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each carrying a distinct piece of information: what is produced, what is not executed, and the migration caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Safety and scoping are fully covered and there is no output schema to explain, but a tool whose sole required input is an undescribed nested object is incomplete on the input side. The dialect-selection behavior is also left implicit.

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 single required 'schema' parameter is a nested object with additionalProperties allowed and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema itself explains nothing. The description never says what shape that object must take or what fields it expects, leaving the only required input effectively undocumented.

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 output artifact: generate initial DDL for the model's SQL dialect. That is enough to distinguish it in spirit from a sibling like export_java, but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a genuine when-not: existing databases should go through a 'separately reviewed change migration' path rather than this tool. That exclusion is clear and actionable, but there is no explicit when-to-use trigger and no named alternative tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful, non-redundant context: the returned schema is untrusted data and not executable instructions, which is important prompt-injection guidance for an agent.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the lookup mechanism is front-loaded before the safety caveat.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key (SHA-256 ID) and the nature of the return (untrusted schema content). It stops short of stating the return shape or how to source the ID, but is otherwise adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it does add the required format (64-character SHA-256), which the bare 'project_id' schema lacks. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID or reconcile 'project_id' with 'version ID', leaving a gap.

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 (read) and resource (native schema) plus the key lookup key (64-character SHA-256 version ID). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_projects or save_project, and the mismatch between the tool name 'get_project' and the described resource ('native schema') introduces minor ambiguity.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings like list_projects and validate_schema that could plausibly compete. The agent must infer from the name alone when this is the right call.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a privacy guarantee: no network access and no credential/config paths are returned in the output.

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 terse sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the privacy caveat following. Every clause 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 no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, yet it only says 'metadata' without indicating which fields come back. The private-scope note helps, but the return contract for a list tool remains underspecified.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; no parameter semantics need explaining and the description correctly stays silent on arguments.

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+resource ("List metadata of locally saved schema versions") and constrains scope to local, saved data. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_project or list_templates, so an agent can't tell from the text alone why it should pick this over get_project.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'list' suggests enumeration, and 'locally saved' hints at the local-only context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., get_project for a single item).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'No storage/network' coverage constraint, but it is ambiguous (does it mean those templates are excluded from results, or that no storage/network access occurs?) and it says nothing about result shape or ordering.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the payload scope and free of filler. The trailing 'No storage/network' fragment is abrupt and could be clearer, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description never hints at what a returned starter looks like or whether the list is grouped, so return expectations remain opaque.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema has nothing to document and the description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable here.

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 ('List') and resource ('database starters/templates') and even enumerates the categories covered (membership, content, booking, commerce). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like list_projects or create_schema_from_template.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. The only scoping statement ('No storage/network') reads as a coverage caveat rather than selection advice, so the agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing quota consumption, hard input limits, an input validation rule, and that the result is advisory only ('never approval'). Remaining gaps are minor: no error/retry behavior or auth requirements for the 'connected platform'.

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-loaded with the action, then limits, then the validation rule and output caveat; every clause carries information. It reads as one dense block of semicolon-separated constraints rather than clearly separated guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description supplies input limits, validation, cost, and the nature of the return value (advice, human review required). What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is essentially covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and two bare properties, the description carries the full load and does so: source is capped at 12,000 characters; requirements is 1–32 objects with id, text, quote and origin (client/internal); and a cross-field rule that client quotes must appear in source. This meaningfully supplements the empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('requirements review'), the payload sent ('source and candidates'), and the destination ('the connected platform'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like validate_schema or collect_reference, though 'connected platform' stays vague.

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 word 'explicitly' implies this is an opt-in action versus some implicit/automatic path, and 'May consume shared usage' warns about cost, which helps timing decisions. But no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not guidance, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds genuine context beyond that: the version is immutable, persists only locally, never sent remotely, and is shared with an independent editor via the local store. It omits overwrite/return behavior, but with annotations present this is strong added value.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. Slightly terse given the unexplained parameters, but no sentence is wasted.

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 it is a mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description conveys storage semantics and sharing well. It falls short by leaving the required 'schema' argument unspecified and introducing a 'project' classifier that has no matching parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It loosely references topic via 'classified by topic', but never explains the required 'schema' parameter, and its mention of classification 'by project' maps to no actual parameter, which risks confusing the agent about what to pass.

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: saving an immutable local native schema version. It is distinguishable as a persistence/storage operation. However, it does not name or differentiate itself against siblings like create_schema_from_template, validate_schema, or export_sql, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 says the save is local with no remote sending, which lightly implies a use context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. It never tells the agent when to prefer this over validate_schema or create_schema_from_template.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the configured-connection prerequisite and the guarantee that no credentials are returned, which matters for an openWorldHint tool reaching an external platform.

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 tight sentences: the first gives the purpose, the second gives the prerequisite and the privacy guarantee. No filler, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema probe, an agent has what it needs to decide to call it and what environment is required. The one gap is that the possible availability outcomes/response shape are unspecified, leaving interpretation of the result to inference.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty input schema is consistent with 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 ('check availability') and the two resources whose availability is checked (requirements review and reference collection), which is enough to separate it from the sibling action tools review_requirements and collect_reference. It is clear, though it never explicitly frames itself as a health/precondition probe.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Requires a configured platform connection' gives a prerequisite, but the description never says to call this before review_requirements/collect_reference or what to do when it reports unavailability. No alternatives or when-not conditions are named.

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

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope boundary by excluding other review types, but it does not explain what happens on validation failure, error formats, or any other behavioral trait beyond the annotation-covered basics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear exclusion. There is no filler, though the negative sentence could be tightened or merged into a broader usage clause.

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 tool with a nested-object input, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain the expected input structure, validation result format, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 zero description coverage for its single required 'schema' parameter, which is an unstructured object with additionalProperties allowed. The description does not clarify what the schema argument should contain or its expected shape, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (Validate) and enumerates the aspects being checked: native model keys, types, references, and constraints. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling set, which consists of project/template/export operations, though the phrase 'native model' remains slightly jargon-dependent.

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 offers negative scope guidance ('This is not a migration-safety, authentication or payment implementation review'), which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus any alternative, and no positive invocation context is provided.

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