Create entities

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-destructive and idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: duplicate names (existing or repeated in-call) are not saved, are reported under "skipped", and their observations are left unsaved. That partial-failure/dedup semantics is real value beyond the annotations, though it still says nothing about auth needs or size limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the failure mode. 'Returns the entities created' is partially redundant since an output schema exists, which is the only wasted clause.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key non-obvious outcome (skipped duplicates). What remains thin is anything about ordering, limits, or permissions, but for a single-parameter create tool this is close to sufficient.

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 name uniqueness, entityType and observation semantics are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that entities carry types and observations, adding no syntax or format detail, which matches the baseline 3.

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 (Create) and resource (entities) along with what each entity carries (a type and observations). It distinguishes itself from the sibling add_observations by naming it and describing the different job it does.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to add_observations when the goal is adding facts to an existing entity, which is a clear alternative cue. It does not spell out a full when-not-to-use list beyond that single case, so it stops short of a 5.

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