codesweep_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain creation semantics and important defaults/constraints like lifecycle defaults, terminal_states meaning 'processed', and transitions as an optional DAG constraint. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior on duplicate names, idempotency, or persistence details beyond the act of creating.

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 description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact, well-organized Args list. Every line adds useful information about a parameter or default, with no filler or redundancy. The retro lifecycle example is valuable rather than decorative.

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 creation tool with six optional parameters and non-trivial lifecycle semantics, the description covers all parameters and gives enough context to call it correctly. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The main gap is the lack of guidance on what happens after creation or how creation relates to codesweep_add, but this is not essential for invoking this specific tool.

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 compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter is explained with its meaning, default value, and relevant examples — for instance, lifecycle includes a concrete retro-style workflow and transitions explicitly explains that None means unconstrained. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new sweep for batch iteration over items.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and domain, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like codesweep_add, codesweep_next, and codesweep_mark that operate on existing sweeps rather than creating new ones.

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?

The description provides context about when this is relevant (setting up a sweep for batch iteration, with retro-style lifecycles as a notable use case). However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or points to alternatives such as codesweep_add for adding items to an existing sweep. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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