wizard_generate_faq_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates one .txt file per FAQ, writes to ./{brand}/faq/, formats for Q in Connect ingestion, and enforces a 1MB limit. Missing details include overwrite behavior and error handling, but substantial context is provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then providing directory details and file size limit. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 2-param tool with an output schema, the description covers target directory, file naming, size limit, and ingestion formatting. It doesn't mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but given the moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 100% with both parameters described (brand as slug, faqs as list of objects with title/summary/content). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, only the directory context. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'Generate FAQ text files for Q in Connect knowledge base,' using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the output directory and file format, which distinguishes it from sibling wizard tools like wizard_discover_website or wizard_start_setup.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on mechanics (directory, file format) rather than use cases or exclusions. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer its applicability, but no when-not-to-use is provided.

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