create_reference_property

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Create a ReferenceProperty') without mentioning side effects, permissions, or any constraints. No information about whether this is a mutation, what happens to the parent, or any other behavioral aspect.

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 brief (a single sentence), but brevity here results from under-specification rather than efficient writing. It lacks any contextual or usage detail that would make it useful. It is not well-structured for an agent to act on, as it omits essential guidance.

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?

This is a create operation with side effects, yet the description does not explain return values, side effects, or any preconditions. An output schema exists but that only covers return structure, not behavior. Given the complexity of model creation and the absence of annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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 provides no parameter explanations. It doesn't mention what 'name' or 'parent_id' represent or how they should be used. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema field names, which are self-explanatory but not enriched.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a ReferenceProperty under a Block.' It clearly identifies the object type (ReferenceProperty) and its location (under a Block), making the purpose distinct from many other create_* tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_value_property or create_part_property, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only hint is the name and description, which imply it is for creating reference properties, but no explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance is provided.

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