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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that a new object is created; it does not mention failure modes, duplicate behavior, or return characteristics.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and gives a practical pointer to schema_list, making it easy to parse and act on.

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?

The description is adequate for a create operation: it states the action, scope, and points to schema discovery. There is no output schema, so return-value details are not required, though mentioning the created object's representation could have been slightly more complete.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage with examples (e.g., parent_fq_name as ['cine-corp', 'car-service']), so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a new object in the current domain,' which clearly conveys the tool's core purpose. It also directs users to schema_list for type definitions, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling CRUD tools beyond the word 'create.'

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 one useful usage hint: 'Use schema_list to see available types and their fields.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus crud_update, crud_delete, or crud_get, leaving the decision partially implicit.

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