create_hda

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the source subnet is consumed, replaced, or left intact, whether the HDA is registered in the asset library on disk, what happens if type_name already exists, or whether hda_file must point to an existing writable path. Only the 'from an existing subnet node' clause hints at the mutation's origin.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. But at this brevity it reads as under-specification rather than discipline, given four required parameters and no annotations.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves nearly every operational question unanswered. It conveys only the high-level intent and the source object type.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains node_path, hda_file, type_name, label, or version — notably the distinction between type_name (asset identifier) and label (display name), and the path format expected for hda_file.

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 and resource ('Create a new HDA') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('from an existing subnet node'), which hints at the source object. It is distinguishable from siblings like install_hda or update_hda, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus install_hda, update_hda, or the various create_*_node tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that an existing subnet node must first exist). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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