hex-create-cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — the cell is created in the draft version, not a published one — but says nothing about required permissions, what happens on cellType/source conflicts, or what the tool returns after a mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the important scope qualifier ('draft version') comes before the tool is called. It is efficient, though terse enough that it underspecifies rather than being genuinely complete.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the draft-version scoping is disclosed, but prerequisites, permission needs, and post-create state are omitted.

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 100%, so all four parameters (projectId, cellType enum, source, afterCellId) are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a new cell') and scopes it to the draft version of a project, which distinguishes it from hex-update-cell and hex-delete-cell among siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the create/draft framing makes its role 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist and have a draft version), and no routing to alternatives such as hex-update-cell or hex-list-cells. The only usable cue is the implied 'create' semantics.

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