aism_content_create

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, open world), so the bar is lower. The description adds one real behavioral fact — posts/pages default to draft status — but omits permission requirements, whether the created resource is returned/identified, and failure 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the one behavioral default. Nothing is redundant; the only weakness is that comparative brevity trades away detail an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with a nested free-form data object, no output schema, and an undocumented required resource parameter, the description covers the basics but leaves key gaps: valid resource identifiers, required vs optional fields, and any indication of what a successful call returns.

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 67%: site and data are documented, while the required resource parameter has no description at all. The description partly compensates by listing plausible resource values (post/page, term, comment), but it does not say whether these are exact names or where to look them up, so the most important parameter remains ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and enumerates resource families (post/page draft, term, comment), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It also names the sibling it is not for (aism_media_upload for files), though the catch-all "another native resource" leaves the resource set partially open.

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?

It provides one explicit routing rule — use aism_media_upload for files instead — which is genuinely useful. But it gives no guidance on choosing between create vs aism_content_update, or where valid resource names come from (aism_schema is only hinted at inside the data parameter description), leaving the primary selection decision implied.

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