nexus_create_changelog

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

Annotations already cover non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the ownership requirement and the return contract 'JSON {success, changelogId} or an error string', which clarifies failure behavior.

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 concise sentences plus a one-line return value. The primary action and ownership constraint are front-loaded, and the return information is useful without redundancy given the output schema.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the action, ownership prerequisite, and return contract. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it does not explicitly mention related operations like nexus_update_changelog.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented. The description maps conceptually (collection revision -> revision_id, changelog entry -> description) but adds no extra format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the action 'Create a changelog entry' with a specific target 'for a collection revision', plus the ownership constraint 'must own it'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling nexus_update_changelog (create vs update) and read-only changelog tools.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: to create a changelog entry for a collection revision, and it provides a key prerequisite (ownership). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the create-vs-update context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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