things_create_item

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral context by requiring a unique UUID requestId and disclosing the local write permission requirement, including that it is disabled by default. 'Native verified' also reassures the agent that no emulation or fallback is needed.

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 three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the key idempotency requirement and the permission prerequisite.

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?

With an output schema available and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies the important operational context: supported kinds, unique requestId, and the local write permission requirement. It is sufficient for correct invocation; only minor details like how to enable the permission are omitted.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for kind ('to-do, project, area, or tag') and requestId ('unique UUID'), but it says nothing about the required title parameter or the optional notes parameter. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a to-do, project, area, or tag.' It enumerates the exact object kinds the tool supports, which also distinguishes it from sibling tools like things_update_item, things_trash_item, and things_move_item.

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 makes the intended use obvious ('Create...') and adds an important prerequisite: local write permission is required and disabled by default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the creation-specific wording gives clear context.

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