create_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states it creates an item, without disclosing side effects, validation rules, error handling, or authentication needs. Basic mutation is implied, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 with two sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear structure with line breaks for the constraints. No redundant information.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation for many parameters, the relationship with chapters/sections, and expected return value. The code path composition is mentioned but not clarified enough for proper usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for two parameters: code (2-digit constraint) and unit (allowed values list). However, it does not explain the remaining 7 parameters like section_id, name, quantity, unit_price, etc., which are essential for correct use.

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 tool creates a BOQ item under a section, using the verb 'Create' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_section and list_items by naming the resource type and mentioning the code path composition.

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 provides specific constraints on code format and allowed units, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_create_items, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the section's existence. Usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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