acc_compose_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: values are validated against code tables, and the name can include a -Status-Revision suffix. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only signal without contradicting it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical usage tip without any wasted words. Every clause carries meaning.

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 a full input schema and an output schema present, the description's job is to provide usage context, which it does well by naming the intended scenario and a prerequisite. The only minor omission is not mentioning limitations or when to prefer a different tool, but this is not critical.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions and an example for values_json. The description adds only a general note about validation and suffix behavior, which is useful but not essential given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Build') and resource ('correct container ID'), and clearly states it operates on field values validated against code tables, with an optional suffix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acc_validate_names, which validates rather than composes.

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 says 'Use when creating a new deliverable name' and gives a concrete prerequisite: 'check the next free sequence number with acc_search_folder first.' It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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