create_vault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's restatement of idempotency adds little. However, it does contribute the concrete return behavior 'returns created=False when the vault already exists', which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the idempotency/return behavior. No filler sentences.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, and the key return signal. It omits any naming/permission constraints, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% (the 'vault' parameter is documented as 'Vault name'), so the schema already carries the burden. The description's note that a vault is a subdirectory of the vaults root adds minor semantic context but no naming rules or constraints, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Create a new vault') and grounds it with a definition ('one subdirectory of the vaults root'), so an agent understands what is being created. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like delete_vault or list_vaults, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

Use is implied by the name and the word 'new', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (list_vaults, delete_vault). Implied usage only.

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