cyd_shortcut_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state machine-specificity, microSD-backing, and the capacity of 18 shortcuts, which gives some operational context. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate shortcut_id, whether the operation overwrites or fails, or if the microSD card must be present. These are notable gaps for a create operation, so a score of 3 reflects partial disclosure rather than a complete behavioral contract.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Create a new microSD-backed Home shortcut'), and the second sentence adds relevant layout details. Every word earns its place, achieving high information density without verbosity.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description falls short of what an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool. It fails to explain what each parameter represents, what a successful creation returns (if anything), and how the agent should handle potential errors (e.g., duplicate ID, capacity limits). The layout info is nice context but does not compensate for the missing operational details.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the three parameters (title, app_id, shortcut_id). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place to convey parameter meaning, yet it mentions none of them. Even the patterns in the schema only constrain format, not semantic intent. This is a critical omission for a tool with three required 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 clearly states the action (create) and the resource (Home shortcut), and specifies 'microSD-backed' which distinguishes it from other shortcut operations. It also provides concrete context about the Home screen layout (two on first page, eight per following page, 18 total), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools like cyd_shortcut_update and cyd_shortcut_delete.

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 this is the creation tool for Home shortcuts and gives useful layout context that helps an agent understand where shortcuts will appear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use only when a slot is available'). The layout info serves as reasonable contextual guidance, so it slightly exceeds baseline but lacks explicit routing.

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