personal_create_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says the tool adds a type, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether existing types are overwritten, permissions, or scope of the catalog change. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the most critical constraint. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, so the context is only partially covered. The essential invoking condition (`target` ∈ node|edge) is present, and an output schema exists, but behavioral context such as idempotency, error conditions, and whether the catalog addition is persistent is missing. It is adequate for a simple call but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It does add crucial meaning for `target` by restricting it to node|edge, but it does not explain the semantics of `name`, `icon`, `color`, or `description` beyond their obvious names. The compensation is partial, not complete.

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 states a specific action (Añade), a specific resource (tipo de nodo/arista), and a specific location (catálogo en runtime). It also disambiguates the meaning of `target` as node|edge, which is essential and not present in the schema. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that manage entities or links.

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 clearly implies the use case: creating a node/edge type in the runtime catalog. The 'runtime' qualifier and the explicit `target` domain give useful context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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