create_chain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by explaining that steps run sequentially by default and that same stage numbers trigger parallel execution, plus the stage integer range. However, it does not disclose side effects, required scheduling behavior, or error handling. It is not misleading but leaves 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds necessary detail without fluff. Every sentence adds information about behavior or constraints, making it appropriately sized.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 4 required, including scheduling and notification fields. The description only covers step execution order and stage constraints. It does not explain sched_type, sched_value, notify_on, stop_on_failure, or the requirement of scheduling parameters. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps, leaving the description incomplete for a complex creation tool.

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 only 29% (steps and notify_email have descriptions). The description compensates for the 'steps' parameter by elaborating on stage semantics (sequential vs parallel, range 0-99). However, it adds no explanation for sched_type, sched_value, notify_on, or stop_on_failure, which are undocumented in the schema. It partially adds meaning but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 the function: 'Create a new task chain.' It uses a specific verb+resource and is distinct from sibling tools like delete_chain or run_chain_now. It also adds key behavioral context about step execution order and parallelism, which clarifies what the tool does beyond the name.

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 description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., using create_worker for single tasks). The only implicit usage context is that it creates chains, but this is tautological. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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