create_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: observation is append-only/unvalidated with consolidation promoting good ones, rules are pushed into every context pack and changed via supersede rather than edits, knowledge is the only editable type. It omits permissions/auth needs and any notion of the create response, but the lifecycle consequences are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized by entity_type with em-dash clauses that keep related facts together. It is information-dense and slightly long, but every clause (lifecycle, editability, promotion) earns its place, so no significant waste.

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 10-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the behavioral model thoroughly and summarizes the required fields. Return-value details are unnecessary given no output schema, though the absence of any auth/permission note leaves a small gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters; the description only restates the requirements ("content always; title+category for knowledge"). That summary is useful but adds little beyond what the schema fields already say, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a knowledge-layer entity") and then disambiguates the lifecycle meaning of entity_type far beyond a tautology, explicitly noting that entity_type selects the lifecycle, not the topic. It distinguishes the three resulting lifecycles clearly enough that an agent can tell what kind of object it is producing.

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?

Gives strong per-type usage guidance ('observation' = raw append-only, 'rule' = verified directive, 'knowledge' = editable doc) and routes the agent to siblings — 'change via supersede, not edits' and 'the only editable type (update_knowledge)'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-create statement, so it falls short of the top band, but the conditions for each branch are clear.

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