create_venue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the POST endpoint and bearer token auth requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains (venue ID?), or side effects on the organization.

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 organized with clear sections (purpose, endpoint, venue fields, authentication) and is front-loaded with the main action. It is somewhat verbose in listing all fields but remains scannable.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, required auth, and fields. However, it lacks a critical detail: what the response returns (e.g., the new venue's ID with which to later call get_venue or update_venue). Without an output schema, that gap matters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists venue fields including address sub-fields (address_1, city, region, postal_code, country), which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic "Address object". Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, with slight extra value from the address detail.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Create new Venue") and scopes it under an Organization, distinguishing it from siblings like list_venues, get_venue, and update_venue. It is clear what the tool does, though it could better differentiate from create_event/create_organization.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites beyond authentication, nor when a caller should prefer create_venue over other creation tools or how it relates to update_venue for modifying existing venues.

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