parse_create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly shows a mutating operation and mentions the return of objectId, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether the class is created automatically if missing, or possible failure modes. This is useful but incomplete.

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 Spanish sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence serves a clear function: what the tool does, what inputs to provide, and what it returns. There is no unnecessary fluff.

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 a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs and the return objectId. However, it omits important contextual details such as whether the class must exist, permission requirements, and error behavior, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% for the top-level parameter, and the description only repeats the parameter names ('className' and 'data object with fields and values') without adding format details, allowed types, or examples beyond the nested schema descriptions. It does not meaningfully compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('Crea un nuevo objeto (registro) en una clase de Parse Server') and a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like parse_create_class (which creates a class) and parse_update_object (which updates an existing object). The return value (objectId) further reinforces the creation purpose.

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 implies usage by instructing to provide className and data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the class must already exist. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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