Ddev Setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a security/safety-critical behavior: the tool refuses to overwrite an existing config, plus the concrete failure mode (file replaced with 'name: .'). This is well beyond what the bare schema conveys, though it omits what happens on success and any permission prerequisites.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The failure-mode anecdote is somewhat narrative but earns its place by justifying the refusal behavior; only marginal trimming is possible.

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 safety behavior is covered and the output schema handles return values, but for a 4-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves most parameter semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent calling with non-default values would hit.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that the default project_name '.' is dangerous but never explains force, docroot, or drupal_version, leaving three parameters undefined in both schema and prose.

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 and resource: 'Generate .ddev/config.yaml for a local Drupal environment.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling process-control tools (ddev_start, ddev_stop, ddev_exec) and from lando_setup, which targets a different local stack.

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?

Provides implicit when-not guidance via the overwrite-refusal behavior and the warning against calling with defaults on a working project. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. ddev_start) or states the trigger condition (no existing .ddev config) in explicit use-when terms.

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