create_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the save location, the changes mapping format with an example, the based_on default and semantics, and the overwrite refusal. It does not cover potential errors for invalid parameter values or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and each paragraph adds necessary detail—the changes example, based_on guidance, and overwrite warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the two complex parameters, the failure mode, and the alternative action. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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?

Despite schema coverage being 0%, the description adds substantial meaning for 'changes' (format and example) and 'based_on' (default and guidance). 'name' and 'note' are left to the schema, but they are simple and self-explanatory.

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 preset and save it to the user's preset folder,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it refuses to overwrite and pointing to adjust_preset as the alternative for that action.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Starting from an existing preset the user likes is usually the better move.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use and an alternative: 'Refuses to overwrite an existing preset — pick another name, or use adjust_preset.'

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