create_specification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The definition implies a creation/modification operation but does not state whether it saves, alters the document, or is reversible. It mentions 'fill rows' which implies writing data, but doesn't disclose effects on the model or existing specifications. The absence of any mention of side effects or return behavior leaves the agent without crucial transparency.

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 sentence, which is efficient and front-loads the primary purpose. It does not waste words, but could be expanded with critical details without losing conciseness. It's appropriately sized for a one-line intro, though deeper context is missing.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It lacks any explanation of parameters, return values, side effects, or conditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation. The description provides minimal context to operate in the broader toolset.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. The parameter names might hint at their purpose (e.g., save, include_root), but the description does not explain the meaning or relationships. For instance, what does 'replace_existing' do? What is the role of 'style_id'? Without documentation, the agent has to guess, which is a serious shortfall for a tool with this many parameters.

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') and the resource ('specification description') and includes an additional behavior ('fill rows from the current assembly tree'). This verb+object structure is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings like preview_specification_generation or create_spw_from_model, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like having a document open or whether it's for initial creation versus updating. The phrase 'from the current assembly tree' hints at context but no exclusions or selections are provided. With many specification-related siblings, this is a notable gap.

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