create_resource

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

With no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: writes go through Decimal.fromString (avoiding float precision issues), returns a JSON with id, name, type, email, cost_per_use. It does not mention auth requirements or prerequisites like an existing document, but covers the most important behavioral details.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides value; no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers creation, parameters, and return. Missing high-level context such as the need for an existing document or error states, but given the output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates: name is described as 'Resource name', type lists all possible values and default, email clarifies relevance for staff, cost_per_use explains Decimal storage. This adds crucial meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Create a new resource at the document's resource root.' It specifies the verb (create) and resource (resource), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task by focusing on resources. No ambiguity.

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 implies use when a new resource is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_task) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for choosing this over other creation tools.

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