Create a tag, category or tool

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the nuance that creation via update_recipe is possible, positioning this tool as an explicit upfront definition. However, it does not disclose idempotency behavior (e.g., what happens if a duplicate name is provided) or any authorization requirements, leaving gaps beyond the annotation coverage.

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 consists of two short sentences, each carrying distinct value: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage context. There is no fluff, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema). It covers purpose and an important usage nuance. However, it lacks information about the return value (what the created object looks like?) and error cases (duplicate names, missing permissions). The presence of sibling tools like list_organizers and update_organizer implies a workflow, but the description does not complete the picture for an agent navigating all organizer tools.

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 only 50% because the 'name' parameter lacks a description. The tool description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. The only indirect help is referencing the kind values ('tag, category or tool') which are already enumerated. No guidance is given for the 'name' parameter, failing to compensate for the schema 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 it creates a tag, category, or tool, and distinguishes it from the automatic creation via update_recipe. The verb 'creates' paired with the resource 'organizer' (tag/category/tool) is specific and matches the title and enum values. It differentiates from sibling creation pathways.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with the on-the-fly creation that happens when assigning via update_recipe, telling the agent when to use this upfront definition tool instead. It does not exclude other related tools like update_organizer or delete_organizer, but the primary alternative is well addressed.

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