Scaffold a UI Integration Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety traits. The description adds useful specifics: it creates a manifest-based card with a preview index.html, and fails if the target folder exists, which clarifies the non-overwriting behavior. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent clear expectations about side effects.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary action and resource, lists all valid card types in a compact enumeration, and includes the critical failure condition. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core creation behavior, the supported types, the preview file, and the failure condition. With an output schema present and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect. It might benefit from mentioning any environment prerequisites (e.g., having a valid session), but given the available structured data, this is a minor gap.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it merely lists card types that are already an enum. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 creates a manifest-based UI Integration Card, enumerates the supported card types, and notes the preview index.html and failure condition. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_ui5_app or generate_fiori_app_odata, which target different artifacts. The verb 'creates' with a specific resource and explicit scoping makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for creating Integration Cards, but there is no guidance on when choose this over other generation tools. The failure condition 'Fails if the target folder already exists' provides a practical constraint but does not clarify the appropriate context relative to siblings.

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