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

Annotations already declare the safe-create profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description discloses the lifecycle behavior that annotations cannot: the world is created unpublished as a draft and requires update_world to become live, which materially affects how the agent sequences calls.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the worldKind distinction, then the next-step pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 14-parameter creation tool with almost no schema documentation and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover defaults, which optional fields drive the draft's behavior, constraints (e.g., the max-3 genre limit only exists in the schema for one property), or what the caller receives back, so an agent must guess at most of the payload.

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 only 7% across 14 parameters, and 7 of them are enums. The description explains the meaning of worldKind values, adding genuine significance beyond the bare enum, but leaves maturity, formality, dialogueFormat, targetAudience, derivation, authoringMode, characterLanguage, narrativeLanguage, hook, rules, and synopsis completely unexplained. It compensates for one parameter out of fourteen, which is well below what the low coverage requires.

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 ("Create a new world") and adds the important scope qualifier "as a draft," which separates it from the world-mutating siblings like update_world. It does not explicitly contrast itself with import_brief or create_entry, but the resource noun makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on choosing between the worldKind values (private for your own writing, playable for players) and routes the agent to the follow-up step via update_world. It stops short of saying when to create a fresh world versus importing an existing brief, so exclusions are absent.

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