agora_create_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no content is stored here ('empty container') and that the artifact is bound to 'THIS agent' identity, but says nothing about duplicate-title handling, permissions, rate limits, or reversibility of creation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the empty-container constraint. The trailing file-path caveat (never automatic upload, never remote path) is really about agora_publish_artifact's argument and is somewhat tangential here.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves artifact_type semantics, creation preconditions, and failure modes undocumented, which is thin for a mutation tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'artifact_type' in particular is a free-form string with no enum and no hint of allowed values, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register a new logical Artifact') and immediately scopes it as creating 'only the empty container,' which distinguishes it from sibling agora_publish_artifact and from read-side tools like agora_get_artifact. An agent can tell what this does and does not produce without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up alternative and the condition that selects it: publish content via agora_publish_artifact, this tool only makes the container. It does not compare against other container-creating siblings (e.g. agora_create_knowledge_object, agora_create_claim) or state prerequisites such as required identity/permissions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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