human_design_composite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the tool merges bodygraphs and lists output contents (shared channels, authority dynamics, relationship type), plus credit cost. No contradictions.

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 relatively short with two distinct sections: what the tool does, then credit cost and example. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary words, though credit information could be part of annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It mentions output will show channels, authority, and relationship type, but does not clarify the format (json/llm) or structure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description includes an example that demonstrates parameter usage but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter.

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 calculates a Human Design composite chart for two people, merging bodygraphs. It specifies what it shows (shared channels, authority dynamics, relationship type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like human_design_bodygraph or ephemeris_composite.

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 provides an example but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ephemeris_composite. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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