create_charter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'create' as a write operation and outlines the charter's contents, but it does not disclose required permissions, side effects, return values, or potential reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what the tool does and what it returns). No wasted words.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's primary purpose and the charter's defining elements. However, it omits usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral expectations (e.g., permissions, side effects), leaving gaps in completeness.

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 75%, and the description adds high-level context like 'constitutional root' but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify parameter relationships or value formats, so it adds marginal value over the schema.

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 creates a new institutional charter, positioning it as the constitutional root. It distinctively lists what the charter defines (offices, amendment rules, dissolution policy), differentiating it from sibling tools like sign_charter and verify_charter.

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 this is the creation tool for charters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as sign_charter or verify_charter. It offers no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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