create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: mandatory full content for files, file linking syntax (//<fileId>), that tags are not created here, and default workspace visibility. However, it does not explain the return value or error conditions, which are important for a creation tool.

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 relatively long due to detailed type-specific guidance and a separate paragraph on file linking. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the linking instructions add complexity. The length is justified by the tool's multi-type nature, but it could be more concise.

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?

Given 14 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of creation behavior for each type. However, it omits expected return values (e.g., the created resource ID or object) and how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent using it.

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 coverage is high (93%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value for the 'type' parameter (clarifying how tags are created) and 'content' (requiring completeness and linking syntax). For other parameters like folderId, it adds nothing beyond the schema. Overall, moderate additional meaning.

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 'Create a new resource in a workspace' and lists the supported types (file, library, agent, skill, workflow) with required fields for each. This provides a specific verb and resource scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_agent or create_project, which offer type-specific creation.

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 gives detailed internal guidance on which parameters to use for each type, but it fails to mention when to use this generic create tool versus the type-specific sibling tools. There is no advice on alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit decision criteria.

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