create_macro_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool creates a structured library with categorization and version control, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing libraries), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The description offers moderate behavioral insight but misses important details.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then elaborate on features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter with a loose schema and an output schema (not shown). The description explains what the tool does but does not clarify how the input_data should be structured or how the output is used. Given the tool's potential complexity (creating a library with version control), the description could provide more guidance on input formatting or examples, leaving a notable completeness 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'input_data' with a generic description 'The input data value.' and allows additional properties. The tool description adds context about categorization, documentation, and version control, implying what the input might contain, but does not specify the expected structure or provide examples. Since schema coverage is 100% (though vague), the description adds marginal value.

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 tool creates a 'library of organized macros for team sharing and reuse' and elaborates on features like categorization, documentation, and version control. This distinctly specifies the verb (create) and resource (macro library), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like execute_macro or optimize_macro.

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 implies usage for team sharing and reuse but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_macro_recording or batch_execute_macros. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving room for interpretation.

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