type_library.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create and optionally attach' but does not explain what 'attach' means, whether creation persists immediately, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short (5 words) and lacks structure. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. Important details about parameters, attachment behavior, and return value are missing, making the description insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, no annotations, and a create operation, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how attachment works, or how to use the parameters effectively. Siblings like type_library.load likely have more context, making this one stand out as incomplete.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level detail—it does not explain 'name', 'path', 'session_id', or 'add_to_view'. The agent cannot infer the meaning of 'optionally attach' from the parameters, leaving a critical gap.

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 'Create and optionally attach a type library', which identifies the action (create) and resource (type library). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like type_library.load (load existing) and type_archive.create (different resource). However, 'optionally attach' is vague and reduces specificity slightly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_library.load, type_archive.create, or other type-related tools. It lacks any when-not or prerequisite information, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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