Create record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation: auth fields required, file upload mechanism, and relation ID format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, validation failures, permissions, or response behavior, leaving some uncertainty for a mutating 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by addressing a distinct operational aspect (data, auth, files, relations) without extraneous wording or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema and five parameters (one required), the description covers the key invocation patterns needed to create records successfully. It explains the most complex parameter ('data'), special auth requirements, file uploads, and relation handling. Minor gaps exist around optional 'expand'/'fields' parameters and response format, but Schema descriptions already cover those names.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'data' holds field values, specifically requires 'password' and 'passwordConfirm' for auth collections, defines how 'files' maps fields to local paths, and clarifies relation ID formats. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource — 'Create a new record in a collection' — which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like create_collection or update_record. It makes the tool's primary function explicit and unambiguous.

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 clear practical context for when to use the tool, including how to handle auth collections, file uploads, and relation fields. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use update_record instead of...'), but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand this is the create-record operation.

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