console_prepare_input

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

Rich disclosure beyond the annotations: hard links instead of copies, copies only when the volumes differ, the source folder is never modified (consistent with destructiveHint=false), and MS-DIAL outputs land in the new folder. It also explains that for .d/.raw-style formats the directory tree is recreated and only inner files are linked, which an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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 purpose and the motivating failure mode are front-loaded, followed by behavior and then a parameter glossary, which is a sensible order. It is on the long side with some explanatory redundancy about the wiff/wiff2 distinction, but every block is functional.

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 two-hint, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly complete: it covers behavior, safety, defaults, and valid inputs. The one gap is the return value (the created path / summary) and idempotency behavior on re-run with an existing out_dir, which is not spelled out.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it does: dataset_root is the raw folder, keep_extension defaults to "wiff" and enumerates the 12 MS-DIAL-readable extensions, and out_dir defaults to the sibling <source>_<extension>. This is exactly the value the schema lacks.

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?

It pairs a concrete verb (create a folder holding one measurement format) with the exact problem state it resolves (MS-DIAL's MIXED_RAW_FORMATS prompt / SCIEX .wiff vs .wiff2). No sibling tool addresses this remediation step, so the purpose is distinguishable without opening the 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?

It states the trigger condition clearly — a raw folder that would otherwise raise MIXED_RAW_FORMATS and prompt interactively — and describes handling of folder-as-sample formats (.d, .raw). It does not name exclusions or an alternative tool (e.g. console_cleanup / console_plan) when this is not the right step, so it stops short of a 5.

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