create_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral caveat ('Mail does NOT auto-open the other app') and describes the return value. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or persistence requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence captures the primary purpose and output; the second adds a valuable caveat. Both earn their place.

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 explains the return value (join link + peer prompt) and one caveat, but lacks guidance on when to use versus siblings and doesn't address the roles of members and created_by. With no output schema and no annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 50% (title and peer have descriptions, members and created_by do not). The description adds no parameter information, leaving members and created_by unexplained and not clarifying their impact on the created chat.

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 a shared chat session') and specifies the output ('return a join link + peer prompt'). This differentiates it from siblings like join_chat and chat_link by focusing on creation and the unique return artifact.

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 usage for creating new shared chats, which is clear from the verb 'Create'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is unambiguous.

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