create_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not state whether permissions are needed, what happens if parent_id is invalid, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response/result looks like. An output schema exists but is not described in the input schema. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, compact sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the verb and resource. While it is arguably too terse to be fully helpful, it is not verbose and every word serves a purpose. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema that is not described, and a 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits crucial context such as what the created package contains, how the parent is identified, any side effects, and the return value. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional external knowledge.

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 description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It mentions 'under parent_id' which clarifies the role of parent_id, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond its literal name, nor does it provide any details about ID formats, validation, or constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value over the bare schema.

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 states a clear verb (Create) and resource (UML Package) with the location context (under parent_id). It distinguishes from generic creation tools like create_element by specifying the UML Package type. However, it does not differentiate from other package-related tools (if any) or explain the role of a package in the model, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_element, create_block, or other create_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., parent must exist) or scenarios where a different tool is more appropriate. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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