create_persona

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'create new persona' without disclosing whether this is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., does it modify the profile?), what the idempotency behavior is, or what the response returns. For a complex tool with 14 parameters including nested objects, this is a significant behavioral 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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it borders on under-specification—only 6 characters effectively ('create new persona') with no additional context. It's not verbose waste, but it's too minimal to be judged as well-structured or informative.

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 tool has a complex nested data object with 14 sub-parameters, a required profile_id dependency (with nuance about account-scoped vs profile-scoped keys), and no output schema. For this complexity, a single sentence is inadequate. The profile_id description in the schema provides useful context, but the tool description itself fails to mention the profile-scoping dependency, required fields, or behavioral expectations.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds zero parameter information beyond what the schema provides. However, the schema itself is quite rich with descriptions for most parameters (tone, language, confidence ranges, entity_weights examples). The description adds nothing, so it cannot compensate for the 50% coverage gap, but the baseline 3 applies since the schema does heavy lifting.

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 'ペルソナを新規作成' (create new persona) uses a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating it creates a persona. It distinguishes from siblings like update_persona and delete_persona, but is very brief and doesn't add detail about what a persona represents or how it differs from get/list personas.

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. With dozens of create_* siblings and a complex persona concept, there's no context about when persona creation is appropriate, its relationship to profiles, or how it differs from other creation tools. The profile_id parameter hints at a dependency but this isn't explained in the description.

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