create_library_tool

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says what artifacts are created but does not mention side effects like filesystem writes, registry updates, approval requirements, activation consequences, or whether the operation can be undone. The 'activate' parameter further hints at side effects that are not explained.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise, but its brevity comes at the cost of important behavioral and parameter guidance.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a create operation in a library-management workflow, the description is too sparse. The output schema may document return values, but the agent still lacks needed context about lifecycle, approval, activation, and side effects, leaving the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. It does not explain meaning of tags, activate, or triggers, which are non-obvious and have no descriptions in the schema. Although name, description, task, and prompt_template are somewhat inferable from context, the tool's own documentation adds no parameter-level value.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and a resource ('documented reusable prompt tool'), and identifies concrete outputs (manifest, README, launcher script). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_library_tools, read_library_tool, run_library_tool, and disable_library_tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, approval workflows, or whether activation is automatic. With siblings like approve_library_tool and disable_library_tool nearby, an agent cannot tell when creation requires follow-up.

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