create_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds context about the 'group' field's effect on workflow placement, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential duplicate name validation, required permissions, or what response to expect, which are not covered by annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential detail about the 'group' parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. This is an optimal length for a create tool.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the purpose and the key 'group' field but omits guidance on the other optional parameters which could affect behavior. There is no mention of return value or confirmation behavior, which would be helpful given the absent output schema. Still, the core function is clear enough for basic usage.

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 only 11% (only 'color' has a description). The description adds meaning to 'group' by listing valid values, but it does not explain 'sequence', 'is_triage', 'description', 'external_id', or 'external_source'. Even required parameters like 'project_id' and 'name' are not elaborated beyond their obvious names. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new state in a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from other create tools like create_project or create_cycle. It also specifies the key parameter 'group' and its allowed workflow values, which helps the agent understand the tool's role.

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 implies usage when a new state is needed in a project and explains the 'group' field's effect, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_state or delete_state. There is no mention of prerequisites such as the project needing to exist, which would be useful for proper selection.

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