Connect BLE beacon bus

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds a concrete list of created scaffold elements, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing components are overwritten, whether connections are established, or what 'device-privacy notes' implies behaviorally.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then packs a list of included artifacts without wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan, though it could be structured more explicitly around inputs and outputs.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It omits usage context, return/result behavior, side-effect expectations, and detailed parameter semantics, leaving significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at mappings (zone maps -> zone_count, smoothing policy -> smoothing_window_sec, adapter source -> adapter_url/adapter_mode) but leaves several parameters (name, active, site_label, parent_path, etc.) unexplained and provides no defaults or constraints beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a BLE beacon proximity scaffold', and then enumerates its key components (sanitized beacon rows, zone maps, smoothing policy, adapter source, device-privacy notes). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tracking-bus creators by domain and artifact type.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tracking/scaffold tools. The phrase 'BLE beacon proximity' implies a context, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of sibling tools to help an agent choose this over a similar bus.

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