create_util

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a creation operation ('Create') and specifies 'empty' (no params, empty body), which implies a side effect of adding a new resource. However, it does not mention what happens if the group does not exist, whether the operation can overwrite, or what the return value or error cases are. This leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action, the object, and a key default behavior. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description should compensate with more context. It does not explain what the created utility function entails beyond being empty, how to later modify it, or what success/failure responses look like. The reference to sibling tools is useful but not comprehensive enough for full understanding.

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?

Only the 'project' parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds some meaning to 'groupName' by stating 'Lands in the given group' and explaining the default, but 'name' and 'folder' are not elaborated. With only 25% schema coverage, the description does not sufficiently explain all parameters for an agent to use them confidently.

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 purpose: 'Create a new, empty shared utility function' with the verb 'Create' and object 'utility function'. It also specifies the default group and mentions the function is empty. This distinguishes it from other util-related tools like list_utils (listing) and delete_util (deletion).

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 some guidance by mentioning the default group and referencing related tools ('see list_util_groups/create_util_group'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The reference to sibling tools is helpful but indirect.

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