whodb_platform_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond those: the default confirmation-token preview flow, the requirement to obtain user approval before confirming, that permission checks are enforced server-side, and that projectId/id are injected. It doesn't explain what the create actually returns post-confirmation, but it is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the resource list and then operational constraints. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the resource enumeration is long but genuinely useful. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical preview/confirm lifecycle, permission enforcement, and default-workspace injection. It leaves desired but non-critical gaps (error behavior on resource-type mismatch, what the confirmed call returns), yet nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents id, action, payload, resource, workspace, payload_json, and idempotency_key. The description adds only the auto-injection note, and it emphasizes the legacy payload_json field ("Pass payload_json as a JSON object") even though the schema says to prefer payload, which is mildly confusing rather than additive.

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+resource ("Create a hosted platform resource") and enumerates the supported resource types, which is genuinely informative. It doesn't differentiate itself from dedicated siblings like whodb_platform_create_dataset, whodb_platform_create_ontology_fast_lookup, or whodb_platform_source_create, which overlap logically, so an agent can't tell from the text alone which to pick.

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?

Gives the preview/confirm workflow ("do not call whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves") and notes that projectId is auto-injected, which is contextual usage help. However it never states when to use this generic create over the specialized create_* siblings, so the primary routing decision is left to inference.

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