create_stream

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only states the creation action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether duplicate names are allowed, if references are established, or any destructive potential). This lack of behavioral context is a significant 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?

The description is brief and to the point: one line for purpose followed by clear parameter definitions. It avoids unnecessary fluff while remaining understandable.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters, but given the tool's complexity (creation of a top-level entity), it misses details like return value, uniqueness constraints, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description itself is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful parameter explanations: 'name' is the display name with examples, and 'purpose' is described as 'Why the stream exists — its enduring north-star (optional).' This adds value beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new stream — a top-level domain of work/life.' The verb 'create' and resource 'stream' are explicit, and the 'top-level domain' helps distinguish it from child entities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_asset' or 'edit_stream'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_stream' or 'list_streams'. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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