create_initiative

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds valuable context about the ToolError when the feature is disabled, which is behavioral beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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-organized with a one-line summary, then Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is concise—every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, feature flag dependency, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary usage aspects: creation, parameter explanation, return value, error handling, and fallback. No gaps identified.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear, concise explanations for all 7 parameters in the Args section. Each parameter's meaning and format (e.g., ISO 8601 for dates, enum values for state) are described, adding 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?

Clearly states 'Create a new initiative in the workspace.' and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_initiatives, retrieve_initiative, etc., by specifying the creation action. The description also includes a fallback behavior when the feature is disabled, further clarifying its unique role.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool and when not to: if the workspace's initiatives feature is disabled, the agent should instead create an 'Initiative' work item. The error message is said to contain exact steps, providing clear guidance on alternative actions.

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