rm_create_discipline

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

The description only restates that a discipline is created and provides no additional behavioral context such as idempotency, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or required permissions. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds nothing beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource 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 simple create operation with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks nuance about uniqueness or prerequisites, but the low complexity and presence of structured annotations and schema keep the gap small.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond the implications of creating a discipline. The schema only provides the title 'Name', leaving format, uniqueness, and constraints undocumented.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new discipline'), so an agent can understand the tool's basic function. It differentiates from sibling update/delete/list operations only through the verb, but does not add extra distinguishing context.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than rm_update_discipline, rm_delete_discipline, or rm_list_disciplines. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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