create_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful traits: return is a JSON string, the password value is not included, and otp_secret must be Base32 and at least 16 chars. However, it doesn't address general side effects beyond creation, authorization requirements, error behavior, or idempotency. Adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-organizzed: a one-sentence purpose, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every line adds value, there is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before parameter details.

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 tool with 11 parameters and 3 required, the description covers all parameters, required markers, and the return behavior, including the notable detail that the password value is not returned. It lacks explicit usage guidance and side-effect nuances, but the schema and output schema cover some of that burden. Strong overall, with minor gaps around prerequisites and alternatives.

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 0 %, so the desccription must compensate. It enumerates all 11 parameters, marks the three required ones, and adds meaningful extra context for otp_secret ('TOTP secret key (Base32 encoded, min 16 chars) for 2FA') and resource_type (e.g., 'Configuration'). Though terse, it gives agents semantics beyond bare schema types.

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 opens with 'Create a new password entry in IT Glue' – a specific verb, resource, and system. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_password, delete_password, list_passwords, and get_password. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The phrase 'Create a new password entry' implies use for new records, so an agent can infer when to call it versus update/delete siblings. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing organization_id or category/folder IDs), and never names alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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