create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the number is auto-generated by scanning the working tree, worktrees, branches and history, and a non-collection folder path is silently promoted to a collection. That side effect is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether this writes to disk, or what happens on conflicts.

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?

Three short sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded, and each sentence carries information (auto-numbering, collection promotion). Minor awkwardness in 'coined automatically' but no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what is returned (the new initiative's number or id?), how to reference the created item afterwards, or how the six undocumented parameters behave. It covers the two most surprising behaviors but leaves the rest of the contract 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 only 25% (only 'type' and 'collection' are described), so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters (goal, tags, owner, related, depends_on, title). It adds semantics for 'collection' ('a folder path that isn't a collection yet is marked as one') and implies no number parameter exists, but leaves the remaining fields entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Create a new initiative', which the bare name 'create' does not convey. It gestures at differentiation from create_collection via the folder-path/collection sentence, but never names the sibling or clarifies the boundary between creating an initiative and creating a collection.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent is left to infer from the sibling list whether this is the right tool versus create_collection or add_question; nothing in the description routes that decision.

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