create_initiative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ToolError condition for disabled features and the fallback action, and mentions the return value. However, it doesn't specify permission requirements or other side effects beyond creation.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. There is no redundant or extraneous information; each section serves a clear purpose.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameters, return value, and a critical error case with fallback steps. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Minor gaps include uniqueness constraints or state transition rules, but the description is largely 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%, but the description adds meaning for all 7 parameters: ISO 8601 for dates, dictionary for logo_props, enumerated states, UUID for lead, and HTML format for description. This significantly enhances the raw schema types.

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 'Create a new initiative in the workspace' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_initiative or delete_initiative by explicitly indicating creation.

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 Raises section provides an explicit alternative: when the feature is disabled, it tells the agent to create a 'Initiative' work item instead. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a fallback.

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