build_hfss_project

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

The description discloses an important behavioral constraint (edits after review invalidate the approval hash), but with no annotations, the full burden is on the description. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the hash is invalid, leaving significant gaps.

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 brief and has no fluff, but it is under-specified. A single sentence with only one piece of constraint information is not enough for a 5-parameter tool, so this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness.

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 there are no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a complex 5-parameter surface, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the build process, output semantics (despite an output schema existing), or parameter roles, so the agent cannot reliably know when or how to invoke it.

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 schema has no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters, and the description does not mention job_id, approval_hash, grpc_port, project_name, or session_mode. The tool provides no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 the action ('Build') and a general resource ('reviewed artifacts'), but it does not specify that this is an HFSS project build or what artifacts are included. The name provides context, but the description alone is vague and does not clearly distinguish from sibling build/compile 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'reviewed' implies it should be used after review, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools like compile_reviewed_antenna_model or build_approved_antenna_pipeline.

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