create_values_philosophy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens when values are created (e.g., whether they're linked to a profile, whether duplicates are rejected, whether it overwrites existing data), what the response contains, or whether specific scoping/permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 extremely brief (one short phrase), which is concise, but it borders on insufficiency rather than intentional conciseness. While there is no wasted text, the brevity itself is a limitation for a tool with nested objects and multiple nuanced parameters.

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 create (mutation) tool with a nested data object containing 8 fields, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is a single phrase that conveys only 'create values/philosophy.' It does not explain the type taxonomy, the meaning of the various numeric/string fields, profile scoping rules, or what the tool returns — particularly inadequate given the nested structure requires careful handling.

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%, so the schema documents some parameters. The description adds nothing beyond 'create' — it doesn't explain the distinction between type values (value/philosophy/belief/principle), the meaning of origin, confidence, or importance fields, or the relationship between data and profile_id. The type field's enumerated-like values and the profile_id binding behavior are documented only in the schema, and the description doesn't reinforce or elaborate on them.

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 '価値観・哲学を新規作成' means 'Create new values/philosophy' which clearly indicates the verb (create) and resource (values/philosophy). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like create_persona, create_skill, etc., within the broader profile domain. It identifies the resource but lacks scoping detail about whether it's tied to a profile.

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. There are many create_* sibling tools, and the description doesn't explain when values/philosophy should be recorded here versus in create_persona or create_custom_entry. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The description provides no context about when this tool is appropriate.

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