ad_create_ou

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says "create" and adds nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or the existence of a dry_run/confirmation_token safety flow implied by the schema. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded line with no wasted words, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Structure is fine; size is too thin for the complexity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but a write tool with no annotations, 7 undocumented parameters, and a non-obvious dry_run/confirmation safety mechanism is not adequately covered by one sentence. An agent cannot tell how to safely invoke it.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description is the only possible source of meaning, and it adds none. It says nothing about name/path semantics, the dry_run flag, the confirmation_token, or the protected_from_accidental_deletion default of true.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Criar nova Unidade Organizacional" = create new Organizational Unit) and tags it [Organizational Units] [WRITE], which cleanly separates it from the user/group/computer create siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other OU siblings (update/delete/move), but the action verb makes the operation clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like ad_update_ou or ad_move_object, and no stated prerequisites (required permissions, parent path must exist, confirmation workflow). The [WRITE] tag only implies it mutates state.

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