aras_create_item

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

The description discloses two behavioral aspects: property validation against the real schema before submission, and that the tool is disabled when the server is in read-only mode (ARAS_READONLY). This gives some insight into internal checks and a conditional disability, but it does not describe the return value, error handling, or any side effects beyond creation. The disclosure is partial but useful.

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, consisting of two sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional details about validation and read-only mode are given efficiently. There is no unnecessary fluff, and the structure is clear and focused.

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 provides basic context about validation and a read-only constraint, but it omits crucial information such as what the response contains after a successful creation, error patterns, or examples of usage. Given the simplicity of the tool, a more complete description would mention the return value and typical success indicators. The lack of output schema amplifies this gap, making the description only partially complete.

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 already describes dryRun and properties, but itemType lacks a description. The tool description does not add clarification for itemType or any further semantics for the other parameters. The validation mention relates to the properties parameter but does not elaborate on expected formats or constraints. With 67% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing itemType guidance.

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's purpose: 'Crea un nuovo elemento' (Creates a new item). It specifies a concrete action (create) and resource (item), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aras_update_item or aras_search. The intent is immediately clear without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aras_create_part or aras_create_document. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this tool. The only additional info is a constraint about read-only mode, which is about disabled state, not usage selection.

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