architecture_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutation ('records') but says nothing about required permissions, whether it overwrites prior architecture, what happens if validation later fails, or whether the target project must already exist.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It packs several concepts but stays compact and readable, with nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 five-parameter, fully-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the recorded artifacts but omits workflow context, the relationship to architecture_validate, and any return or failure behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description maps loosely onto systemDesign, modules (boundaries/entrypoints) and interfaces (contracts) but omits the dependencies parameter entirely and adds no format or syntax guidance 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?

States a specific verb ('synthesizes and records') plus the resource and lists the concrete contents it captures (system design, modular boundaries, entrypoints, contracts). This clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from the likely sibling architecture_validate.

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?

No indication of when this tool should be used versus architecture_validate or the other project-lifecycle siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer placement in the workflow entirely on its own.

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