create_harness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new harness and returns it with harness_id and revision_id set, which is key behavioral information. It also mentions the need for BOM and connection data. It doesn't detail error handling or permissions, but the core mutation and response behavior are well-covered.

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 four sentences, each contributing distinct value: purpose, input requirements, prerequisite, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (read harness_schema), input specifics (full JSON with BOM/connection data), and return behavior (IDs set). It does not address error scenarios or idempotency, but the essential context is provided given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema description for harness_data is 'Complete WorkingHarness JSON object (see harness_schema resource),' which is already helpful. The tool description adds meaningful detail by specifying 'BOM and connection data' and instructing the user to read harness_schema first. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Create a new legacy harness,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like save_harness by emphasizing 'new' and 'legacy', and further specifies the input requirements (full WorkingHarness JSON with BOM and connection data).

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?

It provides explicit guidance by instructing 'Read the harness_schema resource first,' which is a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'new' versus 'save' distinction in sibling context is clear. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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