Create a new department in the organization, optionally as a sub-department under a parent, with a name and description.
Create a new department in the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Department name | |
| parent_id | No | Parent department ID (for sub-departments) | |
| description | No | Department description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations contain only a title, which carries no behavioral information, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does not state required permissions, whether names must be unique, whether parent_id must reference an existing department, or what the call returns.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal economy.
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 behavioral annotations and no output schema, the description omits permission requirements, failure modes, and return value. The simplicity of the tool only partially excuses these gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents name, parent_id, and description. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema (e.g., hierarchy constraints for parent_id), so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new department in the organization'), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings, though among the listed siblings there is no other department-creation tool, so the risk of confusion is low.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a department must not already exist), and does not reference the related list_departments tool. Usage context must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.