create_use_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it creates an element, implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or any behavior beyond the basic action. There is no contradiction with annotations (none exist), but the description is minimal.

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 core action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is so brief that it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations or output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of a UseCase, any constraints (e.g., uniqueness of name), or what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer too much to use it correctly.

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. It mentions parent_id as the parent context, adding some meaning, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter at all. The description only partially clarifies the parameters, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of 'name' beyond its title.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('UseCase element'), and specifies the parent context via 'under parent_id'. This is specific enough to distinguish from other create_* siblings, though it doesn't elaborate on what a UseCase element is.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of create_* siblings, the agent must infer from the element type name alone; there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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