Create protocol version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes 'immutable' and 'producer-approved', which are real behavioral facts beyond the annotations, but it does not explain the idempotency semantics (e.g. what happens when same name/version is resubmitted) or any authorization requirement.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the immutable/producer-approved constraint front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core action and one important behavioral fact (immutability) but leaves farm_id, uniqueness/idempotency behavior, and the response shape unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. 'The exact named steps provided' maps loosely to the steps array, and 'name'/'version' are implied by 'protocol version', but farm_id is never mentioned and no format, length, or ordering guidance is added.

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 and resource (create a farm protocol version) and adds meaningful qualifiers: producer-approved, immutable, built from exact named steps. An agent can tell what is produced without opening the schema. It does not, however, reference the available sibling list_protocol_versions or otherwise differentiate itself from the workflow-template tools.

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 sentence 'Do not invent or prescribe care steps' is an input-authoring constraint rather than routing guidance. There is no statement of when to create a protocol version versus listing existing ones, what prerequisites exist, or what happens on duplicate name/version. An agent gets a constraint but no usage context.

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