Create Repository

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

Goes well past the annotations (which only declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world): it discloses the absence of duplicate checking, that an unknown type is rejected before any write, that noteHandles/tagHandles link only existing objects and create nothing, serialized writes, required edit permission, and lock/rate-limit failure behavior including a retry delay.

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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded, with constraints and alternatives following in a logical order. It is a dense single block covering a lot of ground, and a few clauses (e.g., restating that nothing else is created or changed) could be trimmed, but almost every sentence carries actionable content.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (handle, Gramps ID, name) plus next steps. For a 7-parameter mutation tool it also covers permissions, error/rejection behavior, rate limiting, and non-atomicity relative to create_records, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning, but the description adds cross-tool semantics the schema cannot: where the call number lives (repositoryHandles on create_source/update_source) and that notes and tags must already exist. It also points at get_reference(topic: "types") for valid repoType values, adding a discovery path beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus a definition of the domain object ('an archive, library, church, website or other holder of sources'), which disambiguates it from create_source, create_note, and create_records. It also states what is returned, so the agent knows the outcome shape without opening anything else.

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?

Explicit routing: check list_objects(objectType: "repositories") first to avoid duplicates, use update_repository for existing records, use create_records for multi-record batches, and link sources afterwards via repositoryHandles on create_source/update_source. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are named with concrete alternatives.

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