Generate Catalog Markdown Controls

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

The description discloses that the tool writes markdown files and can overwrite them via force_overwrite. This aligns with annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive, but overwrite is noted). No contradiction.

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 long with code blocks and redundant parameter listings. It could be more concise by omitting the duplicate parameter details.

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 (7 parameters, nested object), the description covers the main functionality, parameters, return, and usage examples. It does not explain the output schema but that is not required. It is fairly 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?

The schema already describes all parameters, and the description's 'Args' section largely duplicates that information without adding significant new meaning. The descriptions are similar, so minimal added value.

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 generates catalog controls in markdown form, with a specific verb and resource. Sibling tools are all different (profile operations, import, init), so no confusion.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, providing clear usage contexts. However, it does not directly reference sibling tools as alternatives, so it is not perfect.

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