create_license

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'registers a license' and lists required fields. It does not disclose side effects like record creation into a persistent store, potential validation errors, or whether the operation is idempotent. No return value or failure behavior is mentioned.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. It gets straight to the point and repeats no fluff. The required-field note is front-loaded and useful, and every word earns its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits what happens on success (e.g., returns the created license ID), potential error conditions, and any special constraints like uniqueness of name. The schema provides structure but not context about the operation's lifecycle.

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 description only repeats that name, seats, and category_id are required, which is already in the schema's required array. It does not explain the meaning of any parameter or touch on the optional fields (notes, serial, purchase_cost, etc.). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'ライセンスを登録します' (registers a license), which is a specific verb+resource. It also notes the required fields, distinguishing it from license-related read or assignment tools. Purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it describe the context for creating a license. Sibling tools like 'assign_license_seat_to_asset' exist, but no distinction is made.

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