gograph_boundaries_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: 'Mutating and non-idempotent; no network access', and explicitly states safety behaviors like refusing linked paths and overwriting. This goes beyond the annotations and provides operational constraints.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by behavior details, THEN/NOT TO USE, and RETURNS. It is slightly longer than a minimal description but every sentence adds value, avoiding redundancy.

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 single-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it covers what it does, when to use it, safety constraints, and the return value ('The written config path or an error when the path is unsafe or already exists'). No critical gaps remain.

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 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented. The description adds the default path value ('.gograph/boundaries.json') which is not in the schema description, but this is a minor addition. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the action ('Create a baseline architecture boundary configuration') and the resource ('from the repository's current package imports'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool gograph_boundaries by specifying NOT TO USE for verification, making it highly distinguishable.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' (once when adopting boundary checks) and 'NOT TO USE' (to verify an existing configuration, with the alternative gograph_boundaries named). This is exemplary guidance that directly addresses tool selection.

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