Create Artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Create' is consistent. It adds the behavioral detail that the created artifact is returned, but does not disclose potential behaviors like overwrite semantics, error conditions, or required permissions. This is adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward create operation.

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 the schema and annotations, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and return value, but lacks usage guidance and does not detail the structure of the returned artifact (which is not covered by an output schema). This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves typical gaps.

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%, with every parameter having a description in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 creates a new artifact, scoped to a user/session, and returns the created artifact. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_artifact, delete_artifact, and list_artifacts, which have different verbs and resources.

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 such as update_artifact or list_artifacts. It only states the action itself, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name, which is not sufficient.

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