Create classification system

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing atomicity ('in one undo step'), the uniqueness constraint on name+editionVersion, and partial-success semantics via the return shape (items with either {guid,...} or {id, error}, plus created/failed counts). This is meaningful behavioral context 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then layers constraints, item shapes, workflow, and return shape. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; only minor tightening would help.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-tree mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, constraints, input shapes, downstream workflow, and return structure. Coverage is strong, with only edge behavior (e.g., failure modes when reuseExisting is false and the system exists) left implicit.

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 (88%), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value by explaining the two accepted input shapes for items — nested children vs. flat with parent referencing an earlier item's id — which complements rather than repeats the schema.

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 ('Creates a classification system') and immediately scopes it to optionally include the full item tree, plus an analogy to the Classification Manager's 'New' for humans. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_classification_items and modify_classification_system.

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?

Provides workflow guidance ('Then classify elements with the official classification tools and use the items in property availability') and a uniqueness constraint ('name + editionVersion must be unique'). It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling to use when only adding items to an existing system, though reuseExisting is hinted via schema.

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