create_annotation_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' without revealing potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens upon creation (e.g., returns the created queue). This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 of four words, which is concise but not informative. It restates the tool name without front-loading significant details. While it lacks wasted words, it also lacks substance, so it does not earn its place fully.

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's simplicity, the description is too minimal. It does not mention return values even though an output schema exists, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools or provide behavioral context. For a create tool, more guidance on the object being created (e.g., queue properties, persistence) would be expected.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (name, description, score_config_ids) beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, no improvement over the baseline.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'annotation queue', but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_annotation_queue_assignment or create_annotation_queue_item. The purpose is clear but generic.

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 (e.g., create_annotation_queue_assignment for assignments, list_annotation_queues for retrieval). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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