rh_prepare_generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses immutability of the produced plan and the key side-effect boundary (no provider submission), which is real value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the workflow must first be validated), error behavior, and idempotency.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The main action and its key constraint are delivered immediately.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects, four required inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The agent gets the core intent but none of the parameter-level or prerequisite context needed to invoke it correctly.

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% across 8 parameters including nested objects, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at work_item_id and workflow_revision_id, leaving backend_profile_id, output_contract, mode, asset_bindings, provider_submit_mode, and provider_workflow_id unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Create') and resource ('immutable local execution plan') with clear inputs (one work item, one workflow revision). The clause 'no provider task is submitted' functionally distinguishes it from a run/submit sibling, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 'no provider task is submitted' clause implies this is a pre-execution/dry-planning step, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as rh_run_workflow.

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