create_enum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create' without revealing side effects, overwrite behavior, required permissions, naming constraints, or what happens if the enum already exists. The added details are conceptual rather than behavioral.

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 short intro, usage note, Args block, KB pointer, and example. It is reasonably concise, but the example duplicates the Args section and contains an incorrect value format, which introduces noise.

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 simple asset-creation tool with three parameters, the description is mostly adequate and points to a knowledge base for more detail. However, with no annotations it could be more complete about optional path behavior, naming conventions, and result/return behavior.

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 0%, so the Args section meaningfully compensates by explaining enum_name, values, and path with concrete examples. The examples for enum_name and values are helpful, but the final example is misleading because it passes 'values=0.0' instead of a list of strings.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a custom Enumeration (Enum) asset.' It clearly explains what Enums are and where they fit ('states, types, and categories'), so an agent can understand the purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like create_struct or create_data_table by naming alternatives.

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 clear usage context: Enums are for named option sets and are meant to be used with Switch on Enum nodes. This helps an agent decide when to call the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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