object_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: objects are not replaced by default, and Plot name collisions are auto-suffixed with the adjusted name reported in the response. It does not detail checkpoint/error behavior, but the core safety and collision semantics are transparent.

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 two dense sentences with the main behavior front-loaded and the edge-case guard placed second. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'no name conflict is ever created' clause is a useful assurance rather than filler.

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 create/overwrite behavior and the Plot collision edge case well, which is important given no annotations. Still, with no output schema, it does not state what a normal non-Plot create returns, and it leaves object_path format and parent requirements unaddressed.

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 75%, and the schema already explains overwrite, object_type, and allow_without_checkpoint. The description adds useful Plot-specific meaning for object_type via the auto-suffix rule, but the required object_path parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new IC-CAP object' and adds the important non-replacement caveat. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many type-specific create siblings (model_create, setup_create, etc.), so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 overwrite condition is explained ('unless overwrite=true'), and the Plot collision rule gives situational guidance. However, the description never says when to prefer this generic tool over type-specific create tools, leaving alternative selection mostly to inference.

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