create

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

Only readOnlyHint=false is provided, so the description must carry the behavior burden for a write operation. It says nothing about whether existing files are overwritten, what `force` does, or where output lands relative to the default 'SPEC.md'. The agent is left guessing about the destructive potential of the call.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core intent comes first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given how much else needs explaining.

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 mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint=false annotation, this one-line description is insufficient. An agent cannot confidently predict file paths, overwrite behavior, or how `features` shapes the generated SPEC.

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 all four parameters rely on the description, which only alludes to the `profile` enum ('core or core+optional profile'). The `force`, `output`, and especially `features` parameters receive no explanation of their effect or accepted values.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (SPEC.md) plus the scope nuance 'smallest useful starting' with a core/core+optional profile. It doesn't name or differentiate from any sibling tool, but the sibling list (validate, inspect, blackbox, trace_create...) contains no other SPEC-creation tool, so the intent is still 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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus validate/inspect, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens if SPEC.md already exists. The presence of a `force` parameter hints at overwrite semantics, but the description never addresses them.

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