create_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new action' reveals only the basic mutation but omits crucial details: whether it overwrites existing actions, whether it requires an object, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 extremely concise at one short sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool, but it sacrifices essential information. It does not bloat or mislead, so it earns a middle score for not being verbose, but it is under-specified.

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 the tool mutates state, has no annotations, and provides no parameter or behavioral detail, the description is inadequate for an agent to call it safely. It doesn't explain the action data block, prerequisites, or return value, making it incomplete for even basic usage.

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?

The input schema defines a single parameter `name` with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description adds nothing about what `name` refers to (e.g., the action's name, format, uniqueness). Parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new action'), matching the tool's name and purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like `assign_action` or `list_actions`, but the action of creating is distinct enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `assign_action`, `list_actions`, or `push_action_to_nla`. The description gives no context about required preconditions (e.g., active object, mode) or intended workflow, leaving the agent to guess.

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