generate_physical_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: unregistered words go to warnings, and using a workspaceId source reads the latest workspace-standard master. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it doesn't cover all potential side effects or return details.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action with no filler. The parenthetical about unregistered words and the workspaceId condition are efficiently integrated without bloating the text.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a two-parameter tool, covering the generation process and warning behavior. However, it does not specify the return format or any error conditions, and given the absence of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about what the agent should expect.

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 50% because logicalName lacks a description in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's role ('logical name') and adding workspace-specific behavior. However, it does not elaborate on file/erdId source variants, which are already described in 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 generates a physical name from a logical name using a word list and naming rules, with a specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_naming or propose_dictionary_word by emphasizing generation rather than validation or proposal.

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?

Usage context is implied—provide a source and logical name to get a physical name—and the description adds a conditional behavior for workspaceId sources. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_naming or propose_dictionary_word, nor does it provide exclusions.

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