Prepare Worst Case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the mutation/side-effect profile is partly covered. The description adds only the cryptic mechanism hint 'with table()' and says nothing about what gets modified, whether it must precede run_worst_case, or any auth/ordering constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the 'with table()' clause is too cryptic to fully earn 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, 20% schema coverage, and no annotations explaining behavior, the description is far too thin. It omits required-parameter meaning, ordering relative to run_worst_case, and what the preparation produces.

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 only 20% (just workspace_root), so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'component' to reference and 'two corner values' to low/high, but schematic_path is unexplained and no format or syntax guidance is given for any of the four required parameters.

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 object ('step a component between two corner values'), which conveys a corner/worst-case sweep operation. However, it never says it prepares a worst-case analysis directive, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like run_worst_case or prepare_step. The purpose is only partially clear.

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 mention of alternatives such as prepare_step or run_worst_case. An agent gets no signal for choosing this over other prepare_* or worst-case tools.

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