scf_generate_documents

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it is a write requiring admin role, it is asynchronous (returns a task_id), it skips existing documents, and force overrides that skip. No annotation contradiction — 'write' aligns with readOnlyHint=false and the skip behavior is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct essential information: operation+role, async contract+follow-up tool, and skip/force edge case. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an async write tool with no output schema, it discloses the essential contract: what is queued, the admin role requirement, the returned task_id, the polling endpoint, and idempotency behavior. Remaining details like batch failure semantics are reasonably delegated to the referenced status tool and the well-documented schema.

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 100%, and the schema already provides strong parameter guidance (org_id sourced from scf_list_organizations, generator from scf_list_document_generators, domain_id from scf_list_document_domains, requests bounded 1-40). The description restates the force behavior already documented in the schema, so it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline.

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+resource ('Queue ISMS document generation') with explicit scope ('one or more generators') and clearly differentiates itself from siblings by specifying it returns a task_id to poll rather than a document, separating it from document-read/export tools like scf_get_document and scf_export_document.

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?

Names the intended follow-up explicitly ('poll scf_get_document_generation_status') and gives a usage rule for the force flag ('Existing documents are skipped unless force is set'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use versus alternatives like scf_export_document or scf_generate_system_recipes.

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