gripp_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool writes to Gripp and requires confirmation, implying mutation. However, it omits details about side effects, return values, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 two sentences, each providing essential information: the action and a critical constraint. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple create tool, earning its conciseness.

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 the complexity of 3 parameters, nested object in fields, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It references gripp_describe_entity for field details, which helps, but it does not explain what the tool returns after creation, leaving a gap for agents to infer 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by noting that 'fields' should be defined after using gripp_describe_entity first, providing helpful usage guidance beyond the schema. The confirm requirement is also reiterated, which reinforces safety. This added context justifies a 4.

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 'Create a Gripp entity' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gripp_update or gripp_delete, which perform different operations. The additional note about confirm requirement gives context, but the purpose is already clear from the tool name.

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 mentions that confirm=true is required because it writes to Gripp, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gripp_batch. Sibling tools exist but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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