statetree_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the create behavior, the destructive overwrite side effect, the save behavior, and the structured JSON return. The overwrite line explicitly tells the agent that an existing asset will be deleted before creation, which is important behavioral context.

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 Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. Each sentence adds value, there is no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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?

The description covers all five parameters, the return shape, a KB reference, and an example, making it largely complete for invocation. It is slightly incomplete on failure/conflict behavior, such as what happens when overwrite=false and the asset already exists, or whether missing folders are created.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with actionable meaning, especially schema_class, which includes "short name or /Script path" guidance beyond the schema, and overwrite, which clearly states the deletion behavior.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: "Create a StateTree asset with an editor schema." It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like statetree_inspect or statetree_add_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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as statetree_add_state or mass_create_entity_config. It implies a creation workflow via the example, but there are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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