create_requirement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses parameter constraints (title 10-200 chars, description min 20), optional fields, defaults (safety_classification default class_c), and return value (success message with ID). It does not specify error behavior for duplicate IDs or permission requirements, but covers the essential creation behavior.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, Args list, Returns line, and an example. Every section adds necessary information without redundancy. It is efficiently organized and front-loaded with purpose.

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 description covers all nine parameters, includes a concrete example, and states the return value. Though it doesn't enumerate error scenarios, the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the comprehensive parameter documentation make it complete enough for a create tool.

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 0%, but the description's Args section provides meanings, valid enums, constraints, and default for every parameter. The example demonstrates realistic usage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding significant semantic value.

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 opens with 'Create a new software requirement', which uses a specific verb and resource, and specifies the IEC 62304 Section 5.2.2 standard. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_requirement and get_requirement by defining its distinct creation role.

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 clearly states this is for creating a new requirement, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention update_requirement for modifications, so it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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