input_create

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 says 'Create and configure,' without disclosing the overwrite behavior, checkpoint behavior, what happens if the input already exists, or what the call returns. The schema mentions overwrite and allow_without_checkpoint, but the description itself does not surface these behaviors.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and then uses well-organized bullet lists to explain mode and sweep-type options. The duplicate 'U: Voltage mode' entry is redundant, but overall the structure makes the large parameter space easier to navigate.

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 21-parameter create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the required input_path semantics, default behavior, return value, or side effects like overwrite/checkpoint. The mode/sweep information is valuable but incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is only 10%, so the description must compensate. The mode and sweep-type lists do add meaningful grouping for many parameters, such as plus_node/minus_node for V mode and to_node/from_node for I mode. However, the shorthand names do not always match the JSON property names, 'U' duplicates 'V', 'Dec or Oct' has no corresponding schema field, and W/F/T modes lack detailed parameter guidance.

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 action: 'Create and configure an Input object.' This distinguishes it from the many sibling get/set/query tools that operate on existing inputs. However, it could more explicitly position itself against other input-related creation or modification tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as input_set_field, input_get_field, or other create tools. An agent must infer from the name that this is for creating new Input objects. No exclusions or alternative-conditions are stated.

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