Actions Create Action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal key behavior: it creates a new action, requires prior approval, and returns the created action's ID. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if approval was not obtained, so the transparency is incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first followed by requirements, optional fields, and workflow guidance. Each sentence adds useful information, though it is slightly longer than necessary due to the list of optional parameters.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: required vs optional fields, the important priority_id default behavior, the approval workflow, and the return value. It is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though it could mention which sibling tool to use for retrieving the created action afterward.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema. It clarifies that priority_id is an org-specific UUID and that omitting it uses the system default, and it reinforces that only title is required.

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 opens with 'Create a new action in Mitti,' naming a specific verb, resource, and system. This clearly separates it from siblings like actions_update_action_status and actions_get_action, which operate on existing actions.

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?

It provides explicit sequencing: 'Call request_approval first and wait for the user's decision before calling this tool,' which tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke this tool. It also states the minimum requirement of a title, giving clear entry conditions, though it does not describe when not to use the tool beyond the approval prerequisite.

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