neurover_prepare_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial non-obvious trait: despite being a price lookup, it mutates the canvas, which explains the readOnly=false hint and warns the agent it is not a side-effect-free query. It stops short of saying what exactly is modified on the canvas, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the sibling routing and the mutation warning. Every clause carries information, with only mild density from the chained cross-references to submit_generation and prepare_generation.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return (a price), the mutation side effect, and sibling routing. Remaining gaps are the identity of nodeId/account and the exact nature of the canvas change, which matter for correct invocation but are secondary to the routing guidance provided.

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 the burden. It does gloss the scope enum in prose (target tile / its dependencies / whole canvas, matching target/dependencies/all), which is genuinely useful, but nodeId, account and workflowId get no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: find out the price of running a tile, its dependencies, or the whole canvas, explicitly 'without running'. It clearly separates itself from submit_generation (actual run) and prepare_generation (normal generation), so an agent can distinguish it from its closest siblings 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?

It names the decision condition explicitly: call only on a direct user request about tiles or the canvas, otherwise use prepare_generation via the canvas chat, and use submit_generation to actually run. Both the when-to-use and the exclusions are spelled out.

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