create_resource

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which are not informative. The description adds 'typed properties' but does not disclose key behaviors such as whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the file is created atomically, or what happens on invalid input. There is no mention of return values or error handling.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the annotations or 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?

With five parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwrite behavior), prerequisites (e.g., valid project path), or return values. The description leaves too much unsaid for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%: every parameter has a description in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('.tres resource file') and adds 'typed properties', which clearly differentiates it from sibling creation tools like create_scene or create_tileset. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the description implies usage: use when needing to create a .tres resource file with typed properties. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, so it stops at implied usage.

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