write_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: validation against the catalog before sending, the ability to include nested children, and the rule to never include Id. It doesn't describe failure modes or side effects beyond the annotation hints, but the added validation and nesting details justify a 4.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then gives a concrete example, then the critical constraint (never include Id), then custom fields, and finally the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the structure guides the agent from general to specific.

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 generic create tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what to pass, how to format it, what to avoid, and when to use a different tool. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, but those are less critical given the annotations and the tool's generic nature. The nested-object example and custom field guidance make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the fields parameter format with a concrete example, clarifying that nested children are allowed, and specifying that Id must not be included. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Entity fields as Targetprocess JSON' description.

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 tool creates an entity of any resource that supports create, with a specific example and explicit exclusion of Id. It also distinguishes itself from write_create_card by noting the card-specific alternative. The verb 'create' and resource scope are 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 explicitly says to prefer write_create_card for cards because it applies team rules, giving a clear when-not-to-use directive. It also provides guidance on nested children, custom fields, and the Id exclusion, which helps an agent decide when to use this generic create tool.

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