invariance_operator_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with a write operation. It adds behavioral context by specifying the authentication requirement (user-session JWT bearer) and explaining the semantics of the two operator types, which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction exists.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with no filler content.

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 tool has three required parameters, all documented in the schema, and the description covers its purpose, type selection, and authentication. It does not explicitly mention the return value or error behavior, but for a simple create operation this is often implied. Given the absence of an output schema and the openWorldHint, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the meaning of the operator_type parameter with concrete examples (Claude Code, Granola notes) and clarifies the project scope. It also adds the auth requirement, which is not in the schema, thus providing additional semantic value.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'operator', and scopes it to the caller's projects. It distinguishes operator types (agent vs human) with concrete examples, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like invariance_operator_list or invariance_operator_get.

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 when to use this tool, including the distinction between agent and human operator types and the prerequisite of a user-session JWT bearer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance on type selection is strong enough to steer an agent correctly.

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