create_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It notes that the assessment is created as a draft and explicitly separates activation as a later PATCH step, so the agent understands creation does not publish. It doesn't mention permissions, validation, or response structure, but these are secondary for a simple create operation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides a concise workflow hint. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level workflow and neglects parameter semantics, prerequisites, or what the response contains. For such a complex tool, this is inadequate for correct 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%, and the description provides zero parameter-level guidance. With 17 parameters, including complex fields like pool_settings, tag_quotas, and shuffle_strategy, the description does nothing to explain their meaning or interrelationships. This is a major 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 the action: create an assessment, and specifies it's a draft. It also indicates the workflow (attach cases, then PATCH status to active), which distinguishes it from updates or duplicates. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: to create a draft assessment that will later be activated. It indirectly contrasts with update_assessment and duplicate_assessment, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The workflow hint is useful, though not fully prescriptive.

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