build_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description lists what artifacts are created but does not state whether the tool is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing artifacts, if it requires specific permissions, or what side effects (e.g., destructive) might occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 phase label, a list of artifacts, a usage condition, and a post-action instruction. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While slightly verbose, it is efficient and each sentence serves a purpose. No wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what the tool returns (only 'show artifact summary'), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or state changes. The agent lacks critical context for a tool that creates multiple artifacts.

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 50%, meaning two parameters ('object_name' and 'sn_table') lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate; it only mentions the high-level purpose and does not explain how these parameters are used. For example, 'object_name' and 'sn_table' are not elaborated. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Phase 4: Create all migration artifacts in ServiceNow: staging table + columns, transform map, field maps, transform scripts, data source, REST message.' It specifies the set of artifacts and labels it as the final phase, differentiating from sibling tools like 'discover_schema' or 'analyze_dependencies'.

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 and actionable usage guidance: 'Only call this after Checkpoint 1 (schema) AND Checkpoint 2 (mappings) are both approved by the user.' It also instructs on what to do after completion: 'show the artifact summary and ask the user to verify in ServiceNow (Checkpoint 3).' This covers when to use and what to do next.

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