Scaffold Minimal Arc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this writes to the project, what side effects occur, or whether the operation is idempotent, which is critical for a 'scaffold' verb that presumably mutates project state.

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 phrase is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded purpose statement, no scope, and no routing information. Brevity here is a symptom of missing content, not of efficient writing.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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% for two parameters, and the description adds nothing. The required 'theme' parameter and optional 'project_id' are completely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether 'theme' is a free-text title, a key, or an enum-like value.

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 is a direct Chinese restatement of the tool name and title ('生成最小 Meta 弧脚手架' = 'scaffold minimal arc'), adding no information beyond the identifier itself. It gives no indication of what a 'Meta arc' scaffold contains or how it differs from sibling tools like register_character_arc or register_ending_axis.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. does an active project need to exist first?), and no mention of alternatives in a 60+ tool namespace full of arc- and structure-related tools. The agent must guess where this fits in the workflow.

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