record_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 hints that writes can be blocked by policy, but doesn't say what happens on denial (error vs silent skip), whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what a successful response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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, so there is nothing to trim. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness – the one sentence is doing far too little work.

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?

The tool takes a nested object payload, requires a connection reference, and returns nothing documented (no output schema). With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description would need to explain the values/model mapping and the policy precondition mechanism; it does neither.

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 three required parameters, including a nested free-form 'values' object and a 'connection_id'. The description adds no meaning to any of them – it never mentions model, values, or connection_id, so the agent must infer the entire payload shape from bare property names.

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+resource: 'Create a record'. That distinguishes it trivially from record_update and the read-side siblings (record_get, record_search). It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 a gating condition ('only when the connection policy allows it') but never explains how an agent is supposed to determine that – no mention of connection_test or connection_list as the way to check, and no alternative path when the policy disallows. The agent is left with a precondition it cannot evaluate.

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