create_cheatsheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ownership and scope ('playground.write') but does not detail behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or success indicators. The information is partial but not misleading.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds meaningful context (ownership, scope, usage). No redundant or filler content.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description lacks information on return value, parameter details, and complete behavioral context. It covers high-level use but is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. It implicitly references 'title' and 'content' but provides no semantics, format, or constraints. The third parameter 'source_contributor_network_item_id' is entirely unmentioned.

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 action ('create') and resource ('cheatsheet'), specifies ownership ('owned by the calling account'), and provides context for use in playground runs and competitions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_cheatsheet.

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 mentions use cases (playground runs and competitions) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_cheatsheet) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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