Create Capacities object

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the tool 'loads the live structure, rejects unsupported types and invalid properties, resolves label names, and accepts only strict documented API 2.0 blocks.' This explains the openWorldHint (loading live structure) and validation behavior. No contradictions with annotations. Could mention idempotency or side effects more explicitly, but current disclosure is strong.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and scope. The second sentence adds behavioral detail and points to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every clause earns its place. Ideal conciseness for a tool with rich schema and annotations.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (return values not needing description), 6 parameters with complex nested blocks, and a sibling list, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: validation, live structure, label resolution, and alternative tools. It does not mention error handling specifics (e.g., what happens on invalid structure) or rate limits, but these are partially implied by 'rejects.' For a creation tool with this complexity, the description is nearly complete; a small gap is the lack of guidance on how the tool behaves with the openWorldHint (e.g., network dependencies).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has meaningful documentation. The description adds general context about structure loading and strict block acceptance, which relates to the 'structure' and 'blocks' parameters. However, it does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description reinforces but does not significantly extend parameter semantics.

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 creates Capacities objects (Page, Tag, Task, custom structures) with a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_object_from_url' by explicitly noting that variant for weblinks, and from other creation tools by being the 'preferred structural creator.' The behavioral details (loads live structure, rejects unsupported types, resolves label names) add specificity to the purpose.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool ('for Page, Tag, Task, or custom structures') and when not to ('Use create_object_from_url for weblinks'). It implies it should be used for structured object creation with validation. However, it does not address when to prefer 'create_object_markdown' or other siblings, missing a small opportunity for more exhaustive guidance. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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