eda_lib_cbb_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says that a reusable module is created and a UUID is returned; it does not mention side effects, duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, or whether the target library must already exist. For a mutation operation, this is a significant 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?

The description is compact: a one-line signature, a short purpose phrase, and a return note. It contains almost no filler, though putting the human-readable purpose before the signature might improve front-loading.

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 mutation with four logical parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisite conditions, classification semantics, and creates ambiguity because the schema marks no required parameters while the signature marks `libraryUuid` and `cbbName` as required.

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 JSON schema only describes generic wrapper properties (`args`, `windowId`), so the description's signature adds the actual parameter names, types, and optionality: `libraryUuid`, `cbbName`, `classification?`, and `description?`. This is valuable, although `ILIB_ClassificationIndex` and the meaning of `Array<string>` for classification are not explained.

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 includes a function signature `lib_Cbb.create(...)` and the Chinese phrase '创建复用模块' (create reusable module), which clearly states the verb and resource. It also declares the return value as the reusable module UUID, and the 'create' action is naturally distinct from sibling tools like eda_lib_cbb_copy, eda_lib_cbb_delete, and eda_lib_cbb_get, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the function does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate calling context.

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