create_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the action and return value, but doesn't disclose details like authorization needs, error behavior, or mutation implications beyond the verb 'create'. Adequate for a straightforward create operation, but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by a concise usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple create tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, what it returns, and the prerequisite discovery step. It could mention error conditions or authorization, but the coverage is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters have detailed descriptions, including the OData bind syntax for lookup fields. The description reinforces using describe_table but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema, so 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 'Create a single record in a Dataverse table' with a specific verb and resource, and notes it returns the GUID. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_create_records, update_record, and upsert_record.

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 gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use describe_table first to discover correct field names and types.' It also implies single-record use, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with bulk_create_records. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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