bootstrap_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fully delivers: it discloses that this is the only mutating tool, that dry runs execute on a temporary copy of the repo surface, that the output lists files that would be created, overwritten, or deleted, and that real writes are destructive and update the kit stamp. The risk profile is surfaced, not hidden.

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 long but appropriately so for a high-risk mutation tool with 7 parameters; the critical write-vs-read-only distinction is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure aids scanning. Minor redundancy: dry_run default semantics are fully explained in the third paragraph and then restated in the Args block.

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 complex mutating tool with 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and only a string output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, side effects, the safety gate, all parameter semantics, and the Markdown return format. An agent could invoke it safely and correctly with no additional information.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: all 7 parameters receive value domains (clients list, preset categories, language choices, codegen options), default sources (server start value, profile setting, or fixed default), and behavioral meaning (with_overlay copies, keep_unselected_clients prevents deletion). Nothing is left to inference.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: install kit files (hooks, agents, commands, mcp.json, stamp) into the app repo. It also explicitly differentiates from all siblings by declaring this is the only MCP tool that writes to disk while the rest of the server is read-only, making selection unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

Names the manual alternative (cloning the kit and running scripts/bootstrap-project.sh) and explains why this tool supersedes it. It also prescribes the safe workflow: dry_run=True is the default planning mode, actual writes require explicit dry_run=False, and it warns that PreToolUse hooks catch Bash/Edit/Write rather than MCP tool names — clear, actionable guidance on when and how to invoke.

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