create_interaction

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create', implying mutation, but provides no details about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what the response will look like. For a create operation 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds clarity without extra words. However, it is under-specified, which hurts overall usefulness.

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 that there is no annotation coverage and the schema provides no parameter descriptions, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the meaning of 'parent_id', the expected structure of an Interaction, or any return value. An output schema exists but is not visible here, so the description must carry more weight.

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% and the description does not mention the 'name' or 'parent_id' parameters at all. An agent has no idea what values to supply or what the parameters represent, making correct invocation highly unlikely without external knowledge.

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 UML Interaction and adds a helpful parenthetical explaining it as a container for sequence diagram content. This distinguishes it from other create_* tools (e.g., create_block) but does not explicitly compare to similar sequence diagram elements like create_combined_fragment or create_lifeline.

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. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions under which an agent should choose it over other create_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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