create_tool

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the permanent installation, the required config flag, and the need to restart the agent. This is genuine behavioral disclosure.

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 three concise sentences, each adding unique information: the core action, the prerequisite, and the post-condition. No redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 five parameters, a nested schema, and no output schema, the description provides the key operational context: persistence, configuration prerequisite, and restart requirement. It does not explicitly describe error behavior or return values, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need. Overall adequate and well-rounded.

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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add extra parameter-specific guidance, but the high coverage means the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Generates, validates, and installs a new MCP tool permanently into the server.' This is unique among siblings, none of which create tools. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 provides clear context for usage by stating the prerequisite configuration ('Requires allow_tool_creation: true in ~/.syscontrol/config.json') and the post-condition (tool available after restart). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers equivalent functionality, making the intended use clear.

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