create_habit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new habit' without mentioning persistence, return value, duplicate handling, default behavior, or constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It avoids redundantly repeating optional parameter details and earns its place as concise, efficient guidance.

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?

The schema fully covers parameter semantics and defaults, which makes the definition sufficient for invoking the tool with the three required fields. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not state what the successful response contains or any creation-side constraints, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds little beyond restating 'goal frequency' and does not clarify the relationship between goalFrequency and goalPeriod, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'habit' and highlights the key 'goal frequency' concept, so an agent can clearly tell this operation adds a new habit. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_habit or list_habits, but the verb and resource are unambiguous enough.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'Create' — an agent can infer this tool is for introducing a new habit rather than updating or toggling an existing one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, so it falls short of strong routing guidance.

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