Create a record

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining mutation nuance. It discloses the staging behavior, the validation-before-write behavior, and the fact that commit is required on certain resources. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action first, then validation, then the exception case. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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 create tool with no output schema, it explains the essential invocation path, including when commit is required. It could say more about return shape or failure behavior, but the description and schema together cover the necessary details.

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 schema already describes attributes and relationships in detail, covering 2 of 3 parameters. The tool-level description adds no parameter-specific detail; `resource` remains minimally described, though it is self-evident and explained at a high level as 'any writable resource.'

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 exactly what it does: create a record on any writable resource. The explicit mention of productive_commit_operation distinguishes it from update/delete/list/get siblings. No ambiguity about the operation performed.

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?

Explains the resource-type condition that changes behavior: financial/administrative resources stage an operation rather than creating, and directs the agent to productive_commit_operation to finalize. It doesn't enumerate exclusions versus update/delete, but for a create tool this is sufficient guidance.

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