create_item

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and excels. It discloses ID allocation ('Allocates and returns the next unused item id'), default behavior for omitted fields, and specific error conditions for effect references. This is valuable operational context beyond the schema.

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, with every sentence delivering useful information: purpose, default behavior, ID allocation, and error cases. No redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the 17-parameter schema with full per-parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers what's missing: usage simplicity, return value, and failure modes. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by advising that only `name` is worth passing and explaining that omission yields Regular Item, consumable, no effects. This clearly adds value beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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's function: 'Create a new item in data/Items.json.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the file path adds precision. It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like update_item or search_items.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Only `name` is worth passing; omitted fields use the editor's new-item defaults.' This tells the agent which parameters are important and what to expect if omitted, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_item or mention when to use an alternative.

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