create_struct

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states that the tool creates a structure, which is a mutation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, state requirements, or error conditions. For a write operation, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 concise, containing only two sentences plus an example. It starts with the clear purpose, then gives input instructions and an example. Every element adds value, and there is no extraneous text.

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 covers the essential input format and provides an example, but it lacks context about the operation's effects (e.g., persistence, database modification), error conditions, and the output format. Given that an output schema exists, the agent can infer return structure, but the description does not clarify the tool's behavior after creation. For a tool that modifies persistent state, this is incomplete.

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 schema provides no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage). The description adds essential semantics: it explains that 'name' is the structure name, and 'fields' must be an array of objects each with 'name' and 'type' keys. It provides a concrete example, which greatly clarifies the expected structure. This compensates for the schema's lack of metadata. However, it does not exhaustively document all allowed types or optional keys, so a slight deduction.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new structure type', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It further details the required inputs and provides an example, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. Among the sibling tools, none perform a similar creation action for structures, so it is well-differentiated.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no usage guidance to help an agent decide to invoke it over siblings.

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