treeflow_create_tree

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the write action (creates) and the target scope, but discloses no behavioral context such as whether a root structure is created, duplicate-name handling, required permissions, or what the call returns. Minimal side-effect transparency.

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 with no filler; every word contributes. It is appropriately compact, though it sacrifices behavioral nuance for brevity.

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 all parameters documented, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation, but without an output schema or annotations it omits return-value and side-effect information and any operational caveats. It is adequate but has clear 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with per-field descriptions, including the default for primary_language and allowed purpose values. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Crea' with a clear resource 'nuevo bot (árbol)' and scopes it to the Treeflow workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_branch or create_leaf by explicitly naming the top-level bot/tree entity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the distinction from alternatives is only implied by the parenthetical '(árbol)' and sibling names. It does not direct the agent away from update_tree, create_branch, or other create tools when conditions differ.

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