Create Vault

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

The description discloses the core behavior (creation) and the return value (ID and metadata), adding context about vault independence and project linking. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on duplicate names, and the annotations provide no positive safety signals (all false), so the description carries the burden but leaves some gaps.

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 two short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the vault concept and the return value. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or excessive detail.

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 description explains the core concept and return value, which is good given the output schema. However, with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter explanation leaves the tool only partially documented. It also doesn't address usage boundaries with related vault tools, though the simple create operation reduces the need for extensive context.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only to 'name' (implied) and 'linked_projects' (via the linking explanation), but ignores 'tags', 'description', and 'response_format', leaving the agent to guess their semantics from names alone.

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 specific action ('Create a new knowledge vault') and the resource being created. It explains what a vault is, effectively distinguishing this tool from the many related vault_* operations that operate on documents or sessions.

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 on when to use the tool: to create a vault that can be linked to Claude Projects, emphasizing that vaults are independent and reusable. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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