ybiz_build

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool refuses to close branches from baseline unless their company-id is in allow_close, and that allow_close should only be passed with explicit user confirmation. This is valuable beyond the schema. However, there are no annotations to lean on, and the description doesn't mention other behaviors like side effects, output format, or failure modes.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then states the critical safety condition. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 has 3 optional parameters, no required ones, and an output schema exists. The description covers the main purpose and the most important safety constraint, but it doesn't explain what the output contains, how workspace is used, or what happens when no_baseline is set. For a build tool with a safety-critical condition, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of allow_close (which company-ids are allowed to be closed) and implies the role of no_baseline (bypassing baseline checks), but it doesn't explain workspace or provide full parameter-level detail. The description adds meaning for allow_close but leaves other parameters under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('Собрать feed/feed.xml') and a key behavioral constraint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ybiz_validate or ybiz_diff. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: to build the feed, and it warns about the allow_close condition requiring explicit user confirmation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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