create_content_type

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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description adds two concrete traits: the auth requirement (instance-wide scope means a token not limited to one site) and the failure behavior (the definition is validated and rejected with the offending path). These are exactly the kind of additions that earn credit when annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Front-loads the action, then constraints, then the alternative route, then error behavior in four tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

Covers purpose, alternative, auth scope, and validation failures for a creation tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema. It does not reconcile the instance-wide nature of content types with the presence of a 'site' parameter, a minor ambiguity an agent might notice.

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% and the 'definition' parameter already documents the ContentTypeDef shape and even suggests copying an existing one from list_content_types. The description adds little syntax beyond 'full ContentTypeDef' and the validation note, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create a new content type') and pins down the input shape ('from a full ContentTypeDef'), which separates it from the update/template siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative path explicitly ('Faster for common shapes: list_type_templates + instantiate_type_template') and gives the condition that selects it, mirroring the routing pattern in the HIGH calibration example. It also surfaces the token prerequisite, leaving little to inference.

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