gunkit_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It offers one useful hint ('Minutes per gun' → long-running) and mentions checks performed (clearance, anatomy, grip), but says nothing about what it writes, whether it overwrites existing clips, auth/permission needs, or failure modes for a mutation/build operation.

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?

It is a single run-on sentence with a nested parenthetical that buries the actual action; the purpose is not front-loaded and the phrasing is opaque rather than efficient. Size is short, but structural clarity is poor.

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 minutes-long build/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, what it produces, file side effects, and relationship to the rest of the gunkit pipeline. An agent cannot tell what resources it needs or what it will return.

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 only 50%: 'facts' is described in the schema, but 'grip_steps' (default 3) has no description anywhere. The prose never mentions either parameter or explains what 'facts'/'gunfacts.json' should contain or how grip_steps affects output, 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 gestures at a domain ('Every clip of one gun', hand clips, gun clips, checks, sights) but never states a clear verb+resource, e.g. 'generates animation clips for a rigged gun.' It reads as jargon-laden restatement rather than a definition an agent can act on, and it does nothing to distinguish gunkit_build from siblings like gunkit_rig, gunkit_draft, or gunkit_verify.

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, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance. With 50+ sibling tools (gunkit_rig, gunkit_verify, gunkit_export, gunkit_draft), the absence of routing is a real gap, though the text is not actively misleading.

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