create-object

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds that the object is 'saved to the database immediately', which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits side effects such as validation, schema enforcement, return value (e.g., ObjectId), or error behavior. The description provides some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one relevant behavioral fact (immediate save). Every word contributes to understanding the 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?

For a simple create operation with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created object or ObjectId) or any failure modes, which an agent might need. Given the low complexity and good schema coverage, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 are fully described in the input schema (className and data with descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the expected structure of 'data' beyond being key-value pairs, but the schema already captures that.

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 action ('Create a new object in a Parse class') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-object and delete-object by emphasizing 'new'. The verb 'create' and resource 'Parse class' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not state that update-object should be used for existing objects, nor does it mention prerequisites like class existence or authentication. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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