fx_create_resource

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 implies a write/mutation operation but never states what gets created on disk, whether an existing resource with the same name is overwritten or errors out, or that autoEnsure silently edits server.cfg — a notable side effect left undisclosed.

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 states the action, target platforms, and template options with no wasted words. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a seven-parameter mutation tool.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters including a side-effecting autoEnsure flag, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, overwrite behavior, the server.cfg modification, and any sense of what is returned.

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 seven parameters thoroughly (including enums for game and template). The description adds only the enumeration of template names, which the schema already carries, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a new standardized FiveM/RedM resource) and names the template variants available. It clearly distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like fx_get_resource_info or fx_read_file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with fx_write_file or fx_manage_server_cfg.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_write_file for editing existing resources or fx_resource_action. The agent must infer that this is the scaffolding tool from the word 'novo' alone.

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