create_statement_with_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's write behavior (creates a statement) and explains the types inference mechanism with concrete examples. However, it does not mention return values, error conditions, or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bulleted examples effectively. It avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., a separate note on optional parameters).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, optional nested object, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and the important types inference feature. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers all parameters (100%), and the description adds value for 'types' by explaining how the assembler infers full TypeScript types from code structure, with examples. Other parameters (file, code, method) rely on schema descriptions but are clear enough.

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: 'Create a statement with code in one call.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it's 'Preferred over two-step create_statement + add_statement_code,' providing a specific verb-resource relationship.

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 gives clear usage guidance by highlighting when to use this tool instead of the two-step alternative. It also explains when to pass 'types' and provides examples, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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