start_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions generating documents and updating project context, implying side effects. However, it does not disclose potential destructive actions, required permissions, or what happens to existing files. Basic disclosure but lacks depth for a complex workflow tool.

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 paragraph of about 100 characters, front-loading the main purpose and listing steps. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points for clarity. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides an overview of the workflow but lacks details on return values, interaction with existing project context, and expected output structure. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the workflow output but does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 orchestrates a complete product design workflow from requirements to HTML prototype, listing the steps (PRD, prototype doc, design system, interactive HTML prototype, update project context) and the output (HTML prototype viewable in browser). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_ui' or 'init_project'.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for full workflow from requirements to prototype) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. However, the context of sibling tools implies this is for product design from scratch, providing clear enough guidance.

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