create_priority

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a priority' gives no information about side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or impact on existing data. It doesn't even explicitly note that it is a mutation, and there is no context about duplicate keys or ordering behavior.

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 short sentence, making it concise, but it is under-specified. It provides no information beyond what the tool name already conveys, effectively being a tautology. This is underspecification, not effective conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and fully described parameters, the description lacks essential context for a create operation. It doesn't mention whether this is an admin-only action, potential conflicts, or how it relates to other priority tools. The description is too sparse to support correct tool selection and 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (key, name, order) with descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool creates a priority. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like list_priorities. However, it is minimal and essentially restates the tool name without adding context about what a priority is or any scope constraints.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where create_priority is appropriate over other tools. The description offers no usage context.

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