create_achievement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. A create operation implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether created entries are immediately visible, whether there are any side effects, or what the response/return value looks like. The profile_id behavior for account-scoped keys is a notable behavioral detail embedded only in the schema, not the description.

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, which is concise but borders on under-specification. Being brief is not inherently bad, but the description is so minimal that it doesn't provide meaningful guidance. There's no wasted text, but there's also very little earned substance.

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 create operation with 2 parameters including a nested object with 10 sub-fields defining types (certification, membership, board_member, award, talk, patent), no output schema, and no annotations, the description does remarkably little. It doesn't explain the type taxonomy, the profile_id scoping rules, or what happens on success. The complexity of the data structure is left entirely to the schema.

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 50%, which is moderate. The schema itself documents each field (name, type, url, tags, year, etc.) with Japanese descriptions, and the type enum values are documented. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so it neither helps nor hurts. The nested 'data' object structure is only apparent in the schema.

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 "実績を新規作成" (Create new achievement) states the verb and resource clearly, so the agent knows this creates an achievement record. However, it's extremely minimal and doesn't distinguish from siblings beyond the obvious create operation, nor does it describe what an achievement encompasses (certifications, memberships, awards, talks, patents per the type field).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the profile_id requirement nuance (account-scoped keys need it, profile-scoped keys default to bound profile), which is a significant usage consideration. There's no mention of when creating an achievement is appropriate vs. other entity creation tools.

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