create_wizard

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 describes the tool's behavior (creating a wizard definition with steps and validation) and mentions the return type (JSON string). However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the wizard is a schema or interactive, which is partially covered by the return statement.

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 moderately concise, with a clear structure: overview, step definition format, validation rules, parameter list, and return type. Some redundancy exists (first two sentences both mention multi-step and validation), but overall it is well-organized and not overly verbose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested step objects, output schema), the description covers all essentials: parameter details, step/validation examples, and return type. It explains how clients use the output, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema properties lack descriptions. The description compensates by explaining each parameter (steps, title, allow_skip, show_progress) and providing details on step structure and validation rules, adding significant value beyond the schema alone.

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 it generates a multi-step form wizard with validation, distinguishing it from siblings like create_form (single form) and create_chart. It specifies the verb and resource, and details about step definitions and validation rules.

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 implies usage for multi-step wizards but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_form. No 'when not to use' or comparative guidance, though the context of siblings indirectly suggests distinction.

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