create_agenda

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 discloses that the tool creates a new agenda and returns a key, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether duplicate names are allowed, idempotency, or any limits). For a creation operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the purpose, the second explains the output and its usage with a sibling tool. No superfluous information, front-loaded with key action.

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 description covers the core function and links to the next step (add_contact). It does not detail error conditions or edge cases, but for a simple creation tool with a clear output, it is reasonably complete. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of list_key.

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% as all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only references the returned key. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it creates an agenda (contact list) and returns a list_key needed for adding contacts via add_contact. The verb 'crear' and resource 'agenda' are specific, and the mention of returning the key distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agendas or add_contact.

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 implies that this tool should be used before add_contact by linking the returned list_key to that operation. It provides context on the workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like rename_agenda or delete_agenda.

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