create_analysis_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect (creating a YAML file), the initial status, the theme_id pattern validation, the methodology structure and warning, and the return value. It does not mention overwrite behavior or authorization, but provides solid behavioral detail beyond a simple create statement.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides essential details in a structured, line-broken format. Each sentence adds value: file location/status, theme_id pattern, methodology guidance with warning, and return type. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (12 params, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description offers important context like file creation and return value. However, it omits explanation for most parameters and does not cover required fields. It is adequate but incomplete, earning a 3 for missing significant portions of the parameter space.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only theme_id and methodology in detail, with an example and pattern. However, the other 10 parameters (including required title, hypothesis_statement, hypothesis_background) are not described at all, leaving a significant gap for a 12-param tool with no property descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a new analysis design document, with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting it creates a YAML file in a specific directory with 'in_review' status, making it unique from get/update/list tools.

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 implies usage for creating new designs without explicit alternatives. It mentions the initial status 'in_review' and warns about methodology, but does not explicitly state when to use this over update_analysis_design or transition_design_status. This is implied rather than explicit.

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