create_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a protocol, but fails to mention important aspects like authentication requirements, uniqueness constraints, error conditions, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences: the first succinctly states the core purpose, and the second adds a valuable usage guideline. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 creation tool with an output schema, the description appropriately omits return details. It includes a key precondition referencing sibling tools. However, it misses guidance on post-creation steps (e.g., adding steps via add_protocol_step) and does not mention error handling, so it is 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?

The input schema already describes both title and description as 'plain text only' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond stating they are given, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 and resource: 'Create a new protocol with the given title and description.' It specifies the inputs and is distinct from sibling tools that deal with steps or updates, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 explicit preconditions: search for at least 2 relevant public protocols using search_public_protocols and review steps with get_protocol_steps before creating. This gives clear usage guidance and directs the agent to alternatives, earning a top score.

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