treeflow_create_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the three entity types but says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether entity creation triggers retraining, which matters given a separate treeflow_trigger_training sibling), duplicate-name behavior, or validation failures.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb and resource first, then adds the type enumeration in a parenthetical. It is efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical slightly crowds the sentence; a bulleted breakdown of the three modes could have been clearer without being longer.

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?

The tool has type-dependent parameter requirements (regex needs pattern; simple/composite need values), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain these conditional requirements, the return value, or post-creation behavior like retraining. The schema partially compensates, but for an NLU creation tool with conditional validation, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 already documents all five parameters, including the type enum with default and the role of pattern and values/synonyms. The description adds only a light synthesis (simple maps to synonyms, regex maps to pattern) rather than new parameter meaning, matching the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Crea una nueva entidad NLU' (creates a new NLU entity). It further enumerates the three supported kinds — simple with synonyms, composite, or regex — which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like treeflow_update_entity, treeflow_delete_entity, and treeflow_list_entities.

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 use case is implied by the verb 'create' and the resource 'entity', and the surrounding CRUD sibling set makes the create-vs-update-vs-delete distinction inferable by naming convention. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of treeflow_update_entity or treeflow_create_intent, and it gives no exclusions or conditions.

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