architect_console_url

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that the link is for user-side signing with a passkey and that no tool makes decisions, which goes beyond the structured safety hints.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the user action and the read-only clarification. Every sentence adds relevant information without waste.

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 simple URL-retrieval tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context about what the link is and what the user does with it. It is slightly incomplete on how optional parameters affect the returned link, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 description coverage is moderate at 67%, documenting workspace and wait but leaving port undocumented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema to carry the semantics.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the current workbench link used for task gates and document acceptance. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the purpose is still readily inferable and distinct from most sibling 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?

It explicitly says to hand the link to the user, who reads and signs there with a passkey. This gives clear usage context, though it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use this one beyond the read-only note.

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