create_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and adds a meaningful authorization requirement: owner or admin role. It does not mention duplicate-name behavior, return value, or other side effects beyond the act of creating, which are minor omissions.

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?

One front-loaded sentence communicates the action, resource, scope, and permission requirement with no wasted words. The role constraint is parenthesized so it does not distract from the primary purpose.

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?

With full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential action, scope, and authorization needed to invoke the tool correctly. It omits what the response looks like and duplicate-name handling, but these are not necessary for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond clarifying that the status is created within a workspace, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States the specific verb 'Create', the resource 'status', and the scope 'in a workspace', with an additional role constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_status, delete_status, and list_statuses.

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 phrase 'Create a new status' clearly signals the intended use case, and the sibling tool names imply that update/delete/list operations belong elsewhere. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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