mind_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the most important trait an agent needs: this tool is deprecated and removed in v2.0. That is genuine lifecycle/safety context beyond the schema. It does not say whether calling it now errors or still creates a library, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 compact sentence-set with the deprecation warning front-loaded, the replacement named, and the removal version given. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 one-parameter, never-to-be-called tombstone tool, the agent needs only to know not to use it and what to use instead, both of which are supplied. There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description is sufficient for correct selection behavior.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter. The description implies the parameter is the library name via 'Create a new library', which is minimal compensation, but adds no format, uniqueness, or naming constraints. With only one parameter this is adequate but thin.

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 both the operation ('Create a new library') and its lifecycle status ('DEPRECATED ... Removed in v2.0'), and points at the sibling mind_library as the replacement. An agent can immediately tell what this tool did and that it should not be selected. It stops short of a 5 because the actionable purpose is really 'do not call this', with the original function only parenthetically noted.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use mind_library(action="create") instead, and names the version in which this tool disappears. This is clear when-not-to-use instruction, though it does not say whether the tool still functions in the current version (i.e., whether it is a hard failure or a soft warning).

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