create_hobby

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 for this mutation tool. The description states only that it creates a hobby but doesn't disclose write behavior, whether existing hobbies can be duplicated, what happens on conflicts, or whether the operation is reversible. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it may be under-specified rather than optimally concise given the complexity of the tool.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested data object with 8 fields. The description says nothing about return values, error behavior, the relationship between profile_id and authentication scopes, or required context. The profile_id parameter itself has important scoping semantics documented in the schema but not reinforced in the description.

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%, and the description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The schema documents all 8 nested data fields well (name, tags, metadata, confidence, importance, description, passion_level, related_skills) plus profile_id, so the schema largely does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing, but the schema's coverage supports a 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?

The description '趣味を新規作成' (create a new hobby) clearly states the verb (create) and resource (hobby), matching the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like list_hobbies, update_hobby, and delete_hobby through the '新規' (new) modifier, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required context (e.g., needing an existing profile), and no exclusions. The description implies creation usage through the verb but provides no context on prerequisites or when NOT to use it.

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