ms_graph_to_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a pure transformation producing an ordered command list, which signals no direct side effects, but says nothing about failure modes on invalid specs or any required permissions.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by Args/Returns blocks; no wasted text, appropriately sized for a single-parameter transform tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, yet the description still notes the ordered command list. For a simple pure-transform tool with one param, this is close to complete, with only the validation prerequisite left implicit.

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 0%, but the description documents the single parameter as a JSON string of a valid graph specification and the 'validated'/'valid' wording implies a prior validation step (ms_validate_graph), adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+output: convert a validated graph spec into a Builder API command sequence. This distinguishes it from ms_validate_graph and ms_build_graph, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It states the downstream consumer (UE5 plugin Phase 3 / Builder API), which implies the workflow context, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites beyond 'validated'.

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