platform_project_builder_operations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the action list (cancel, execute) which implies destructive capabilities. It also mentions 'attempt-bound governed actions' but doesn't describe consequences, async behavior, or state mutation details. This adds some context beyond annotations but stops short of full transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and enumerate actions without fluff. The description is efficient, though it could be trimmed by omitting redundant phrases like 'Authoritative Studio state' if not actionable.

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?

Despite an output schema and detailed input schema, the description lacks operational context: it doesn't explain when to use 'dependency_report' vs 'readiness_report', what each action entails, or how the 'domain' parameter factors in. For an 8-action tool, this is a significant gap that could cause incorrect usage.

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 coverage is 100% and the oneOf structure clearly defines all actions and required fields. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like projectId or operationId; it only maps action names to their general purpose. With the schema carrying the full semantic load, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 manages operations for building projects, listing actions like list, read, resume, cancel, and execute. It names the core resource (projects) and distinguishes the operation lifecycle from the build itself, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'platform_project_builder' tool.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description mentions 'registered domain provider' and 'authoritative Studio state' but never explains how to choose this tool alongside siblings like 'platform_project_builder' or 'platform_arch_sop'. An agent must infer usage context from the action list alone.

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