create_place

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only reveals that an API token is required. It does not disclose what happens on success (what is returned, whether an ID is created), whether duplicate venues are detected, or that the venue defaults to 'draft' status per the schema — all material for a mutating operation.

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 clauses with zero filler — the core purpose is front-loaded and the auth requirement follows. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is a double-edged sword given the tool's 14-parameter complexity, which is penalized under completeness rather than here.

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 14-parameter create operation with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is inadequate. An agent cannot tell what the call returns on success, that status defaults to draft, or how creation relates to sibling operations like update_place and bulk_update_status. This matches the calibration pattern for mutation tools without annotations — it should do more.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters including required fields (name_ja, category) and enum meanings are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the rubric's baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('作成します' = create) and resource ('会場' = venue), making the tool's role unambiguous among siblings like update_place, delete_place, and search_places. However, it essentially translates the tool name into Japanese without narrowing scope or naming alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself the way the strongest definitions do.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus update_place (to modify an existing venue) or search_places (to find whether a venue already exists before creating a duplicate). The 'API token required' note is a prerequisite, not a usage condition, and doesn't help an agent decide between alternatives.

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