dataset_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive, supports a dry-run mode, and has no undo. This is solid transparency for a create tool, though it omits permission requirements or failure modes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then key behavioral notes, then a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, safety profile, dry-run usage, scope boundaries, and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, including an example for 'name', the optional 'pool' purpose, 'dry_run' behavior, and 'target' source. This adds significant value beyond 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 clearly states 'Create a ZFS dataset' with a specific verb and resource. The '[WRITE]' prefix and the explanation that it's non-destructive further clarify its role, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like dataset_list and dataset_get.

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?

It provides practical usage guidance: 'Pass dry_run=True to preview' and explicitly says 'dataset deletion is intentionally out of scope,' which helps an agent decide when to use or avoid this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, though siblings are mostly read/list tools, so the context is clear.

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