node_plugin_create_shared_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose auth requirements, whether the list must already exist, or side effects. However, the schema's 'confirm' parameter description explicitly states the non-GET confirmation/preview behavior (returns preview unless confirm:true), which the wrapper-facing description does not repeat; that structured field supplies the key behavioral context.

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?

Very short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing. It is front-loaded but consists mainly of a route and a tag list, not agent-oriented guidance.

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 a nested body parameter, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the nested config object, permission expectations, or the relationship to sibling shared-list tools. The schema's confirm field covers the most critical behavioral gap, but the description itself leaves much unexplained.

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 50%. The 'confirm' parameter is well documented within the schema, while 'body' (containing name/config) has partial implicit documentation via nested JSON Schema constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 is a raw HTTP route summary: 'POST /api/node-plugins/shared-lists' plus 'Create Shared List'. It does state a verb (create) and resource (shared list), so the purpose is minimally clear, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like node_plugin_create_config, node_plugin_update_shared_list, or node_plugin_clone_node_plugin beyond the resource name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent cannot tell from this text when to create vs update vs sync a shared list, or whether a shared list must reference an existing config. The only routing signal is the tool name itself.

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