Create Initiative

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: default status ('planned'), default product ('primary product'), and that only 'name' is required. It also discloses the relationship to objectives and next steps. It does not detail the return format or side effects, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the definition and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place: definition, relationship to goals, defaults/required fields, and follow-up actions. No fluff or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 create tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and unusable annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, required fields, defaults, relationships, and next steps. The only gap is that 'return it' lacks detail about the returned object structure, but for a create operation this is often implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by pointing to 'list_objectives' for objective_id, clarifying product_id defaults to the primary product, and giving concrete examples for timeframe ('H2 2026'). This elevates it to a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('initiative'), clearly defining an initiative as 'a strategic effort that groups features and rolls up to a goal.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_feature or create_objective, and the phrase 'and return it' signals the expected outcome.

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 clear context on when to use the tool—when creating a new strategic effort—and offers integration guidance ('Link it to a goal with objective_id' and 'Then align features to it via create_feature / update_feature'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_initiative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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