create_resource

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description's useful addition is the return contract ('Returns the new id and its documents'), valuable since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects on the tree, or ordering behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, core purpose front-loaded and follow-up hints trailing. No filler, though the second sentence mixes tagging and icon advice somewhat loosely.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the common create flow but omits the richer document modes (map/time/board via document_type, calendar_id, document_name) that the schema exposes. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent needing the full capability surface.

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?

With 64% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most of the nuanced parameters (after, parent, content, is_hidden, document_type). The description reinforces 'content in Markdown' and icons but adds little syntax beyond that, so 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?

Specific verb+resource with a clarifying gloss ('wiki article, location, character…') that tells an agent what a resource actually is. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling create_resources (bulk) or create_from_template, which is a real ambiguity in a crowded creation family.

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 hints 'Reuse existing tags (list_tags)' and 'give it an icon' point at related tools and imply a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the sibling creators. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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