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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that creation is scoped to the current domain and that types come from the schema. It says nothing about collision/duplicate-name behavior, validation errors, or that non-idempotent repeats may create duplicates — meaningful gaps for a create operation.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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?

With six parameters, a nested data object and no output schema, the definition is thin: it never says what a successful create returns (an FQ name? the created object?) or how parent linkage works for nested types. The schema_list pointer partially compensates for type discovery, but an agent must still infer the response shape and error semantics.

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%, so tenant scoping, parent_type/parent_fq_name nesting and data key-value pairs are already fully documented in the schema. The description's pointer to schema_list for field definitions adds a little value for the nested 'data' object, but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 object in the current domain'), which cleanly separates it from crud_get, crud_update, crud_delete and crud_search. The word 'object' is generic without the object_type parameter, but the second sentence clarifies that objects are schema-typed, so an agent can identify the operation.

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 routes the agent to schema_list as a prerequisite for discovering valid types and fields, which is the key gating step before calling this tool. It gives no guidance on when to prefer crud_update over re-creating, or on validation failures, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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