create_bucket

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation behavior (creating a bucket) and the agent instruction to request a name if missing. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., duplicate name) or what is returned, which is a gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and purpose, the second provides guidance and examples. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 is low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers purpose, examples, and the required parameter well. It does not specify return value or duplicate handling, but for such a simple create operation, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, and the schema describes 'name' as 'Name for the new bucket.' The description adds valuable context by giving concrete examples ('Work', 'Personal', 'Health') and instructing the agent to ask the user for the name if not provided, which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new bucket'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_buckets or update_or_move_memories. The examples 'Work', 'Personal', 'Health' add clarity about what a bucket represents.

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 when to use this tool (to organize memories into folders) and provides a key procedural guideline: 'Ask the user for a name if not specified.' It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for the intended simple operation.

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