create_spring_from_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a mutating operation, whether it saves to disk, what 'supported' means, or what side effects occur (e.g., creating a document, closing after save). The parameter close_after_save hints at behavior, but the description itself is silent.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the core action but omits essential context. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place as a complete definition.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, side effects, or how parameters interact. The tool appears to be part of a spring-creation workflow, but the description does not provide enough context to invoke it correctly.

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, but it does not explain any parameters. It does not clarify what catalog_id, entry_id, overrides, catalog_dir, output_path, visible, or close_after_save mean in context. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw property names.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a supported spring from one resolved catalog entry.' It is clear that this tool creates a spring from a catalog entry, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_compression_spring or preview_spring_from_size. The phrase 'supported spring' is somewhat vague about what kind of spring is created.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the catalog entry must be resolved first, nor does it reference sibling tools like resolve_spring_size or preview_spring_from_size. An agent would not know the prerequisite workflow or when to choose this over create_compression_spring.

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