create_file

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds minimal context about adding a file but doesn't elaborate on permissions, file type restrictions, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little behavioral insight beyond them.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (file creation with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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%, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'a given project' (hinting at projectId) but ignores name, content, and codeSourceId. With no parameter details in the description and low schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 'Add a file to a given project' clearly states the action (add/upload) and resource (file to project), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_file_contents' or 'upload_object', which might have overlapping functionality.

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_file_contents' or 'upload_object'. It mentions the target (a given project) but offers no context about prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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