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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds the mandatory authorization scope, which annotations do not cover. It still says nothing about side effects such as duplicate names or what happens on scope failure.

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 short sentences, purpose first and the permission requirement second; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple four-parameter creation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, purpose plus required scope is nearly enough. A note on what the created system is identified by, or on uniqueness of 'name', would close the remaining gap.

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% across all four parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics; the description contributes nothing about name, description, crv_multiplier, or system_group_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Create a new system') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not differentiate from the many adjacent create_* siblings (create_system_class, create_system_group, create_project_system), but the name itself is 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?

The description surfaces a prerequisite ('Requires systems:write scope'), which is genuine usage context, but it gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives relative to create_system_class, create_system_group, or create_project_system.

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