create_sticky_notes

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

The description discloses batch behavior and the return of IDs, which adds value beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not cover important mutation aspects like error handling, partial failures, or permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise, delivering the core purpose, batch capability, and return type in a single sentence. Every word adds functional value with no unnecessary padding.

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?

The description covers key operational details like batch size and return IDs, and the schema provides coordinate and style context. However, for a mutation tool without annotations, it lacks guidance on failure modes and operational prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed for complex scenarios.

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?

The description does not elaborate on any parameters. With schema description coverage at only 50%, the missing parameter explanations for 'stickies' are not compensated, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for the array structure.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create sticky notes') on a specific resource ('a mural') with batch support and a limit of 1000. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_text_boxes and create_shapes.

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 is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools such as create_text_boxes and create_shapes imply different use cases, but the description does not mention them or provide contextual cues for selection.

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