Create Agent Context (Deprecated)

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

The description states this tool creates an enforcement context, a write operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. That is the same create-vs-read-only conflict flagged in the calibration example, so the behavioral profile an agent would infer from the text directly contradicts the structured hints. The only genuine added context, the deprecation notice, does not resolve the inconsistency.

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?

Two compact clauses with the most decision-relevant information (the deprecation warning) front-loaded in brackets before the purpose statement. Every clause earns its place; only minor polish would be needed for a 5.

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?

For a five-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the single most important fact for an agent — that it is deprecated — but says nothing about return values, required permissions, or failure modes. Given the deprecation makes deep behavioral detail largely moot, this is minimally adequate rather than rich.

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% — name, mission, enforcement (with enum), spend_limit, and delegated_scopes are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no defaults, no interaction between enforcement levels and spend limits), so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create an enforcement context") plus a mechanism detail ("automatically runs every action through the 3-signature policy chain"). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as create_policy_context, create_gateway, or create_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?

It does provide a routing signal — "deprecated in v3.0.0, use the gateway.aeoess.com REST API" — which tells the agent to prefer an alternative. However, that alternative is an external REST endpoint rather than a sibling tool, and it never states whether/when this tool remains appropriate (legacy v2 callers) or how it relates to the nearby create_* context tools.

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