Stress-test a pattern decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing the scenario dimensions and the outcome ('report when the leading decision flips'), but it does not describe the report format or any implicit constraints. This is adequate but not enriched beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage tip in a separate concise sentence. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is complex with nested objects, an array of patches, and no output schema. The description gives strategic context but omits operational details: what a 'flip' looks like, how to structure a scenario patch, and what the response contains. The schema provides structural guidance, but the absence of output/return behavior is a noticeable gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by naming the counterfactual dimensions (scale, delivery, consistency, team, evidence, goals), which maps to fields in the case object. However, it never explicitly explains the 'case' parameter or how to construct valid scenario patches, leaving significant semantic burden on the schema structure.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('pattern decision'), and clearly distinguishes the tool's function: applying counterfactual scenarios to see when the leading decision flips. This is a unique activity not covered by siblings like analyze_design_case or compare_pattern_options.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before committing to expensive architecture'), providing clear temporal context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the timing guidance is actionable.

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