create_protocol_version

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

The description adds the behavioral trait 'immutable', which is not present in the annotations. It also conveys a policy constraint ('producer-approved', 'do not invent') that affects how an agent should use the tool. Combined with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, this gives a fuller picture. It does not mention auth requirements or return behavior, but the key immutability fact is valuable.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose is in the first sentencecars, and the critical constraint is in the second. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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 4 parameters.težáno, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is lean. It clearly handles the 'steps' parameter, but name, version, and farm_id semantics are left entirely to inference from their names. Given the simplicity of those parameters, the gap is moderate—not severe—but a short phrase like 'unique version label' would have rounded it out.

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 compensate. It only elaborates on 'steps' (exact named steps, do not invent), but provides no added meaning for 'name', 'version', or 'farm_id'. The schema gives basic types and constraints only. The description fails to clarify what constitutes a valid name/version or how farm_id relates to the current context.

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 clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'producer-approved immutable farm protocol version'. It also specifies the input source ('exact named steps'), which distinguishes it from other create tools like create_ration or create_record. The qualifiers 'immutable' and 'producer-approved' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 strong contextual guidance: only use this tool when there is a producer-approved set of steps, and do not invent steps. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the instruction to avoid inventing care steps clarifies a boundary. The 'from the exact named steps provided' phrase establishes the expected input condition.

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