create_circle

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that member-declared channels are stored for later enrollment, that a Proof account is required, and that start_login does not open this tool. It could go further on side effects like whether creation is idempotent or what happens if a member seed fails, but the provided behavioral context is already quite 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 well-structured and front-loaded: first the purpose, then an actionable agent workflow, then required access setup. Every sentence earns its place, including the non-obvious start_login exclusion.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool creates, how to use it in sequence with sibling tools, and the API-key prerequisite. It does not describe the return value or potential partial-failure behavior, but the described workflow and prerequisites are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that members are optionally seeded and that their declared channels are stored for later enrollment invitations. This clarifies the intended role of the members parameter in the overall workflow, going beyond parameter names and types.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Circle — a named group of trusted contacts.' It names the underlying people-primitive concept and clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like update_circle, delete_circle, and add_circle_member.

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 gives explicit agent usage guidance: create the Circle, add members via add_circle_member or seed them here, then invite_circle_member to mint the enrollment deep link. It also documents the required access setup and explicitly states that start_login does NOT open this tool, preventing a common misuse.

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