art.production.create

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does clarify the tool only plans and persists, not executes – useful. But it omits side effects (is it idempotent? does it overwrite?), state changes, auth/rate limits, or what happens on duplicate request_id. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key distinction ('plan + persist, does not start execution'). Zero fluff. Every word adds value.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, 2 nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the one-line description leaves important gaps: what a production job is, what 'plan + persist' entails, validation rules, and what success looks like. The sentence conveys scope but not enough context to guide detailed usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with per-field descriptionsches (all fields have descriptions). The tool description adds no behavior beyond identifying that it persists a plan. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema itself is self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('production job'), and clarifies scope with 'plan + persist, does not start execution'. It's clear what the tool does and meaningfully distinguishes it from execution tools (art.production.start). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or further qualify the resource type, leaving slight ambiguity about what a 'production job' entails.

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 says it does not start execution, which implies a workflow where the agent would call this to plan/persist and then use art.production.start separately dozen but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given. No exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites are mentioned, so an agent gets minimal direction on when to select this tool over siblings.

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