Create Department

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete behavioral details: returns the new id, HTTP 201, and error payload statuses 401/403/404 with meanings. This significantly aids the agent in understanding the tool's side effects and failure modes.

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 compact and well-structured: each sentence adds value—purpose, creation/return behavior, error handling, and endpoint/reference. No fluff or irrelevant details.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers creation behavior, response id, HTTP status codes, and endpoint. It doesn't detail the department object's internal structure or the full response body, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's role, this is mostly sufficient. A small gap remains for nested object fields.

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% for both parameters, so the schema carries the full parameter meaning. The description merely restates 'Required parameters: company_id, department' without adding extra context about the department object structure or company_id format.

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 'Create a new Department' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list/update/delete by emphasizing that calling it again creates another record and returns a new id with HTTP 201.

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?

It communicates clear context: non-idempotent behavior, return of new id, and common failure statuses (401/403/404) that help an agent handle errors. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_department or say when not to use this tool.

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