create-class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, such as whether class creation is idempotent, what happens if the class already exists, or any permission requirements. This is a gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 simple create operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about return values, error behavior, and how this tool relates to siblings like add-field or delete-class. The description is complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps.

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?

Both parameters (className and fields) have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'optional field definitions' adds little beyond the schema's field description. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('Parse class'), and the optional scope ('with optional field definitions'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create-object (creates objects, not classes) and delete-class (removes classes).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to create a new class) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't mention that add-field can add fields later, or what happens when creating an existing class. There is no clear when/not-to-use guidance.

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