create_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, making it maximally concise while still conveying essential information.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or idempotency, doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools, and doesn't provide usage context. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more comprehensive guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'title, content, tags, and metadata' which maps to some parameters but omits 'category', 'is_favorite', and 'files'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate despite the incomplete parameter listing in the description.

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 action ('Create a new context') and specifies the key components (title, content, tags, metadata), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_context' or explain what distinguishes 'context' from other entities in the system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_context' or 'consolidate_contexts'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios where this creation operation is appropriate versus other operations on contexts.

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