create_myth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. 'Upsert' is ambiguous about what happens to the themes map on conflict — whether it merges with existing propositions or overwrites them — and nothing is said about required permissions, failure modes, or reversibility for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool with fully described schema fields. It could only be improved by spending a clause on the upsert conflict semantics rather than padding elsewhere.

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?

This is an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, so the description must cover behavior on its own — yet it leaves the critical upsert semantics (merge vs. replace of the themes object) undefined. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what it will do to an existing myth record.

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 both god_id and the themes map (including a concrete example of key-value propositions) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb pair (create or upsert) and a specific resource (myth proposition record) tied to a deity. This is clearly distinguishable from create_god, create_pantheon, and delete_myth, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_myth or populate_god_myth.

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 word 'upsert' implicitly tells the agent this tool handles both new and existing records, which is some usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_myth or populate_god_myth, nor any stated preconditions such as the god_id needing to exist.

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