create_new_record

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuine context: accepts returned entity/ID headers or a supplied primary key, reports confirmed save separately from ID availability, and dry_run previews without writing — behavior an agent could not read from annotations alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the create action, then the ID-handling nuance, then the dry_run preview. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Accepts returned entity/ID headers') borders on ambiguity but nothing is wasted.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description usefully pre-announces return behavior ('reports confirmed save separately from ID availability') and the dry_run escape hatch. It leaves required data/collection_name requirements to the schema, which is fair given 100% coverage, but a note on validation failure behavior would complete it.

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 the schema itself documents data, dry_run, and the collection_name/collectionName alias pair thoroughly. The description only gestures at 'a supplied primary key' and dry_run and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Create a native record') and the schema clarifies the target as a native entity set such as 'accounts'. It distinguishes reasonably well from model-metadata siblings (create_model_table, create_model_key) by working on records rather than schema, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closely named sibling upsert_record_by_key.

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 explains what dry_run does, which implies when to preview, but it never states when to use this create vs. alternatives like upsert_record_by_key or execute_record_batch. The agent must infer create-vs-upsert semantics from the tool names alone.

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