create_topic

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the useful constraint that topics are parented to a study. It doesn't mention consequences like duplicate-name behavior or whether the study must already exist, but this is a minor gap for a simple create.

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?

At seven words, the description is tightly scoped and front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter creation tool, the description plus the fully documented schema is nearly sufficient. It supplies the parent relationship, while the schema supplies field semantics. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit note on uniqueness or an alternative-tool pointer, but nothing essential is missing to make the call.

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 covers 100% of parameters, including a helpful clarification on study_id ('never a user id'), so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no param-level detail beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 states a clear action ('Add') on a specific resource ('a topic') with an explicit parent scope ('under a study'). It is not a tautology and maps cleanly onto the required study_id parameter. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_subtopic, but the hierarchical wording is enough to set it apart.

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 conveys only that this tool is for adding topics under a study; it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like create_subtopic or create_study. The correct usage is implied by the hierarchy in the wording, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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