create-sticky-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 1000-item limit, which is useful, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when creating duplicates. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core action and a key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant information, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it differs from the sibling 'update-sticky-note' tool. The 1000-item limit is helpful but doesn't compensate for other critical missing context.

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 fully documents both parameters (muralId and stickyNotes array). The description adds the 1000-item maximum constraint, which provides some additional context beyond the schema's maxItems property, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in structured fields.

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 sticky notes') and target resource ('on a mural'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'update-sticky-note' tool, which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 like 'update-sticky-note' or when not to use it. It mentions a maximum quantity (1000 per request) but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or sibling tool relationships.

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