create_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context like id uniqueness and path being inside the container, but does not disclose failure behaviors, permissions, or side effects beyond the basic creation intent.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-structured argument list. Each line earns its place, though the arg examples could be considered slightly redundant given the simple parameter names.

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 simple three-param creation tool, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and key context. The presence of an output schema means return values are covered elsewhere. But it would benefit from more explicit usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and providing concrete examples (e.g., id: 'Plex-media'). This is essential for correct usage.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a backup repository'. It further clarifies the relationship 'one source directory backed up to one storage', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_storage or create_schedule.

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 the tool is for creating repositories and provides context about the source/storage relationship, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No reference to sibling tools is made.

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