create_state

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

The description only says 'create', which is consistent with annotations but adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations themselves. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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 with a clear one-sentence purpose, a parameter list, and a return description. It is front-loaded and each line adds value, though the parameter list could be more compact.

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 has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings. It does not explain relationships or constraints further, but for a creation tool this is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all 10 parameters with brief but meaningful explanations (e.g., 'project_id: UUID of the project', 'color: State color (hex color code)'). This adds value beyond the schema types.

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 new state.' with a list of parameters and return type. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_states, update_state, and delete_state.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to related tools like update_state.

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