prepare_stage_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes a file and describes a subagent-dispatch workflow, but it does not cover overwrite behavior, permissions, file location, or return format, leaving meaningful mutation-side-effect gaps.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and stays compact across two sentences. The second sentence is dense with workflow steps, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and downstream handoff well enough to be usable. However, it does not explain the run parameter or what the tool returns, so it is not fully complete.

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?

There is one parameter (run) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'a run paused at an external seat' but adds no format, identifier semantics, or other detail beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: write stage_prompt.md for a run paused at an external seat. It clearly distinguishes the action from inline authoring and points onward to submit_stage, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('For a run paused at an external seat') and describes the intended workflow: fork a subagent, give it only the file path, then take the deliverable to submit_stage. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or competing alternatives beyond inline authoring.

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