bw_area_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. It discloses the internal sequence (validate, lock, POST, unlock), explicitly notes 'no activate', and mentions the transport behavior for $TMP packages. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the lock is released on error, but the disclosed flow is substantial.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the flow is compactly listed, and the transport note is a single practical sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: the flow, the no-activate behavior, and the transport note. It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema and a create operation, the main gaps are minor. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 all 8 parameters. The description adds context about the parent InfoArea relationship and transport behavior, but doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Create an InfoArea under a parent InfoArea.' It clearly identifies the object type (InfoArea) and the hierarchical relationship (under a parent). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bw_area_validate_exists or bw_area_get_xml, but the create action is distinct enough among the area-related siblings.

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 a clear flow ('validate parent → validate name → lock → POST → unlock') and a usage note ('$TMP packages typically need no transport'). This gives context on when to use the tool and what to expect. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the flow and transport note provide practical guidance.

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