organizer_tools_create_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that this is a POST create operation; it says nothing about required auth, permission scope, whether the tool name must be unique, side effects on households, or the response. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 dominated by a keyword list ('organizer_tools_create_one, organizer tools create one, create tool, add tool, new tool, make tool, write tool...'), which is redundant filler rather than information. The one useful fact (the POST endpoint) is present, but most of the text does not earn its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition should explain the body shape and behavior. Instead it supplies only a verb and an endpoint, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 adds no meaning for the single 'body' parameter. It never mentions the required 'name' field or the optional 'householdsWithTool' array, leaving the agent to infer them entirely from the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create tool') along with the concrete endpoint (POST /api/organizers/tools), so an agent can tell it creates an organizer tool. It differentiates by name from the get/update/delete siblings in the organizer_tools family. However, the front-matter 'Create One — Organizer: Tools' partly restates the name rather than adding scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing to alternatives like organizer_tools_update_one or organizer_tools_get_one. The 'Keywords' block is synonym padding for search, not usage guidance.

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