Create Capacities object

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

The description reveals dynamic behavior beyond annotations: it 'loads the live structure, rejects unsupported types and invalid properties, resolves label names, and accepts only strict documented API 2.0 blocks.' These are important operational constraints not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded: purpose first, then behavior, then alternative. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 complex tool with nested block schema and output schema, the description covers live structure loading, validation, label resolution, and strict block enforcement. It omits return details but the output schema covers that, and prerequisites are implied in schema param descriptions.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds general claims about validation and strictness but no parameter-specific details beyond the schema.

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 states this is the 'Preferred structural creator for Page, Tag, Task, or custom structures', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_object_from_url by directing weblink cases to that sibling.

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?

It explicitly frames itself as the 'Preferred structural creator' and gives a when-not rule: 'Use create_object_from_url for weblinks.' This addresses alternatives in the sibling list, though markdown variants are not mentioned.

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