meld_create

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 reveals the ephemeral nature (expires ~1 hour free tier) and that it returns two links (share and owner). This goes beyond the schema, which only lists parameters. It does not mention any destructive side effects or permissions, but for a create operation, the disclosed behaviors are relevant and useful.

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 sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose and return values, then adds the expiration detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple create tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, what it returns (share and owner links), and its ephemeral nature. It does not explain how to use the links or any error conditions, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (context and pin). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates that context can be code, requirements, etc., which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers 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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (meld) with a clear concept (ephemeral context bridge). It distinguishes from siblings by its action: it creates, while siblings are meld_resolve and meld_read. An agent can immediately tell this is for initiating a new meld.

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 implies when to use it: to create a new meld, as opposed to resolving or reading existing ones. It provides clear context about the purpose but does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to start a context exchange' or list exclusions. The differentiation from siblings is implicit through the verb and resource, which is clear but not explicit.

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