create_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project-scoping context and says nothing about the two-phase confirm/preview behavior, permission requirements, or whether duplicate titles are allowed — meaningful traits for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity leaves real gaps (confirm workflow, permissions) that would have earned 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?

With 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and mutation annotations, the essentials are covered by structured fields; however, no output schema exists and the description never says what a successful create returns (e.g. the new news id) or how the confirm preview behaves, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, so title length, summary length, Markdown description, flexible project identifier, and the confirm preview/apply semantics are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a news entry') and scopes it to 'inside a project', which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_news/list_news. It does not contrast itself with update_news or explain why one would create news versus other project content, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project membership/permissions), and no mention of the preview-then-apply workflow that the confirm parameter implies. An agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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