Create an author

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a non-destructive write. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying the entity is content rather than an identity/account and that no invitation or access is granted — a common and costly confusion. It omits other traits such as uniqueness of name/slug or what happens on duplicate creation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the entity definition and followed immediately by the scope exclusion. No filler, and every clause carries a distinct piece of meaning.

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?

It fully answers 'what kind of thing is this and what is it not', which is the hardest question for this tool. But with no output schema and four undocumented input parameters, an agent still lacks guidance on which fields matter, whether name/slug must be unique, or what identifier comes back.

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 only 20% (just projectId), and the description contributes nothing about parameters. With 5 parameters, four of which (name, slug, bio, email) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap as it must at this level.

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 defines what an author entity is ('A byline') and sharply scopes the tool by stating it is not an account or an invitation. Combined with the name/title 'Create an author', the agent can tell this apart from account-provisioning or invite tools, though the description itself never states the create verb directly.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not: this does not create accounts or invite people, and access to the workspace is a separate dashboard action. That is a genuinely useful boundary. It does not, however, point to any sibling tool (e.g. list_authors) for the related read workflows.

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