create_project_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that the target stack is not inferred, but it never says whether the brief is persisted or ephemeral, nor how citations are sourced — a notable gap for a 'prepare' operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the positive capability is front-loaded before the exclusion. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested object, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does far too little: it never defines what a 'cited design direction' contains, what appIds/flowIds/constraints influence, or what the caller receives back.

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% across five parameters including a nested target object, yet the description never explains goal, appIds, flowIds or constraints. Only the target requirement is loosely echoed ("explicit ... target"), leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb phrase "Prepare a cited design direction" is somewhat abstract jargon, but the target platforms (SwiftUI, Compose, Expo) and the exclusions give a reasonable sense of what it produces. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_mobile_brief or build_design_review_packet, which appear to overlap heavily, so an agent cannot tell them apart from this text alone.

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?

"for an explicit ... target" and "Does not infer capture stack" imply the prerequisite that the caller must supply the stack rather than have it inferred. However, no sibling alternative is named for the cases it excludes (Expo motion recipes, inferred stacks), so routing must be guessed from the sibling list.

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