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

The description discloses that the id is derived from the label and must not already exist, and that color is optional and auto-picked. Since the annotations are only sparse boolean flags, this text carries the behavioral burden well, though it does not mention response or failure behavior.

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 focused sentences that front-load purpose, then state constraints, then give exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with 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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, constraints, and alternative tools. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying label semantics with examples and explaining the derived-id and auto-color behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 GTD context) and defines what a context is with concrete examples like '@boat', 'errands', 'deep work'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_context, delete_context, and create_card.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants a new GTD context') and when not to use it: if a matching context already exists, check list_contexts first; for tagging a card, use update_card with the existing id. This is strong routing guidance.

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