create_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Mutating' and discloses the return value ('returns the created system with its new ID'), which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, error conditions, or any side effects beyond creation. The domain context about 'risk and compliance reporting' adds some behavioral understanding, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 concise, with four sentences across two paragraphs. Each sentence adds value: purpose, mutating behavior, domain definition, and next step. It is front-loaded with the primary action. A minor issue is the slightly cryptic 'Mutating:' prefix, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are handled separately. The description covers the core context: what a system is, where it is created, and what to do next. The main missing context is the purpose of the 'server_version' parameter, but the overall tool is simple and the description provides enough for a create operation.

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?

The description does not mention or elaborate on the parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, which is not high, and the required 'server_version' parameter lacks a description in the schema. The description also fails to clarify what 'server_version' means or how it should be used, leaving a notable gap for agents.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new system container in the current workspace.' The verb 'Create' and the resource 'system container' are specific, and there are no other create-system tools among siblings. It also differentiates from related tools like list_systems and get_system.

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 usage context: creating a new system for grouping threat models. The final sentence, 'After creating one, add threat models with add_model_to_system,' gives an explicit next-step workflow, which helps with usage. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or mention any alternatives, but there are no direct alternatives for this operation.

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