create_smart_object_definition

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context by revealing the create-or-load fallback, the DebugAddSlot mechanism, and the created/saved flags, but says nothing about what happens to an existing definition's existing slots, whether the asset is persisted, or permission needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loading the action and then the return shape, with no filler. Minor clutter from the '(or load)' aside and the API name, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the inline returns list usefully fills that gap, and all three parameters are covered by the schema. However, the relationship to sibling slot-adding tools and the persistence/save semantics implied by the 'saved' flag are left unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete for a stateful asset-creation tool.

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 package_path, definition_name, and num_activity_slots are already documented in the schema. The description corroborates 'N activity slots' and the definition name but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 names a specific verb (create) plus resource (USmartObjectDefinition asset) and a supporting action (seed with N activity slots), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It stops short of contrasting itself with the many sibling smart-object tools (e.g. add_smart_object_slot, add_smart_object_definition_default_behavior) that also mutate a definition, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over add_smart_object_slot or other smart-object builders, nor any prerequisites. The parenthetical 'or load' hints at fallback behavior but is not framed as guidance, so the agent must infer usage entirely.

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