create_state_machine

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that a default Region is automatically created, which is a valuable side effect. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., valid parent type), reversibility, or error behavior. The description is minimal but includes one key behavioral detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the main action and includes essential details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 is simple (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and has an output schema. The description states what it does and the default Region behavior. However, it omits constraints on parent_id (e.g., must be a package or classifier) and does not mention any failure conditions. For a create operation, this is adequate but not fully complete, so a 3 is reasonable.

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 explain the parameters. It clarifies that parent_id is the owner (owned by parent_id), but does not explicitly define the name parameter, though it is implied as the state machine's name. The description adds some meaning for parent_id but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific action (Create) and resource (UML StateMachine), and adds a distinguishing detail (with a default Region) and ownership (owned by parent_id). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_region, create_state, and create_transition, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for state machines, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions, such as using create_element for generic creation or create_region for nested regions. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other create_* tools.

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