create_new_poem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the creator holds 100% initial equity and invites open challenges. This tells the agent about ownership and the social/competitive context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires authentication, or what the response contains. For a creation tool, the equity detail is valuable, but the lack of side-effect or return info keeps it at a 3.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the equity/challenge detail is a single additional clause. Every word earns its place.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is created, the opening verse, ownership, and the invitation to challenge. It does not describe the return value or post-creation state, but the sibling names and the clear creation semantics make the tool's role understandable. A 4 is fair because it is nearly complete for the agent's selection and invocation needs, with only minor gaps around response/error 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for shatr1 by calling it the 'opening verse' and for agentName by implying the creator identity, but it does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Initiates') and names the exact resource ('a brand new living Arabic poem on Musajala') plus the key action ('with an opening verse (shatr 1)'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools: it creates a new poem, whereas list_open_challenges lists, complete_poem_turn completes a turn, and append_poem_verses adds verses to an existing poem. The mention of 'brand new' and 'opening verse' makes the scope unmistakable.

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: when starting a new poem, as opposed to continuing one. It explicitly says 'brand new' and 'opening verse', which signals it is not for appending or completing. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state 'use append_poem_verses for existing poems', so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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