create_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions input constraints (color format, group enum) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, reversibility, or whether it creates global or project-specific states. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide critical parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, yet the description only covers the purpose and two of the parameters. It omits context about required fields like 'name', the role of 'project_id', and any usage or behavioral context. Even with an output schema present, the description is insufficient for a 5-parameter mutation 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential meaning for two of five parameters: 'color' is a hex string and 'group' is restricted to specific values. However, it does not explain 'name' (required), 'project_id', or 'description', leaving those parameters underdefined.

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 begins with 'Create a state.' which is a clear, specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project or create_cycle by naming the resource 'state'. However, it lacks any scope qualifier (e.g., 'in a project'), so it's clear but not as rich as the highest-caliber examples.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_state or list_states. It only states the action and parameter constraints, leaving the usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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