parse_create_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a master key requirement, which is an auth-related behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what happens if the class already exists, idempotency, error behavior, or access/security implications beyond the master key note. For a mutation tool, more transparency about side effects would be valuable.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core action, and the second details the configurable components and the master key requirement. Every sentence delivers useful information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of the nested input schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, field structure, optional CLP, and key prerequisite. It lacks return value/error details, but for a creation tool with a detailed schema, this is reasonably complete. The absence of an output schema shifts emphasis to input clarity, which is well handled.

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 schema has 0% top-level parameter description coverage, but the description actively compensates by explicitly outlining the inputSchema structure: 'Define className, fields (nombre: {type, targetClass, required, defaultValue}) y opcionalmente classLevelPermissions.' This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema, clarifying the expected field format and optional elements.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Crea una nueva clase (tabla) en Parse Server con su estructura de campos' with a specific verb (creates) and resource (class/table). It further enumerates what can be defined (className, fields, classLevelPermissions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like parse_delete_class or parse_update_schema.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to create a new class) and mentions a key prerequisite ('Requiere master key'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives (e.g., using parse_update_schema for existing classes).

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