Prepare Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds only that it inserts a directive, saying nothing about overwrite behavior when a directive already exists or what happens to the target schematic. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, 3 parameters, and two undocumented required inputs, one sentence is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what value to pass for options, what .options controls, or how the insertion affects an existing schematic.

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 33%: only workspace_root is documented, while the two required parameters (options, schematic_path) are bare. The description gestures at the 'options' parameter but never defines its accepted syntax, and schematic_path is entirely unaddressed, 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?

It gives a verb+resource ('Insert a .options directive'), which is more specific than the name alone, but it never explains what a .options directive is or what the tool does to the schematic. Among a large family of prepare_* siblings (prepare_param, prepare_net, prepare_op, etc.), nothing here distinguishes this tool's role beyond the directive name.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling prepare_* tools. The agent must infer from the directive 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.