dw_itemtype_create

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 discloses that the operation creates in one step and gives behavioral instructions for allowedChildItemTypes. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., systemName uniqueness, reversibility, error behavior) and does not mention return value or authentication 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence summary, a bulleted list of conventions, and two targeted sentences on allowedChildItemTypes. Every sentence serves a purpose, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers important usage patterns but omits return value information and error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 60% (likely underestimated, as all top-level parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond the schema by providing category conventions and usage patterns for allowedChildItemTypes. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description minimally supplements it.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new DynamicWeb item type with fields and restrictions in one operation. It identifies the specific verb (create) and resource (item type), and distinguishes from sibling tools like dw_itemtype_update_settings or dw_itemtype_delete.

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 provides clear context for use, including category conventions and instructions for allowedChildItemTypes. While it does not explicitly compare to siblings, the purpose is unambiguous, and the category rules help the agent decide when to use this tool for creating item types.

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