Create Check

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether the check is persisted globally or per-project, what happens on duplicate titles, whether permissions are required, or that fitness_test is what makes the check enforceable in CI.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the trigger condition. No filler or restated title.

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 seven-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits what a successful creation returns (an ID?) and how the optional pattern/fix/fitness_test fields relate to enforcement. The 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter gaps, but the behavioral gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters including the category and severity enums are documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's parenthetical hints at the pattern/fix distinction but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Create a new check in SystemDox", clarified by parenthetical examples (banned pattern, required pattern, coding rule). It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings such as create_guardrail or create_project_rule, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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?

"Use this when you discover a pattern that should be enforced" gives a clear triggering condition rather than leaving usage implied. There are no exclusions, so it does not say when to prefer create_guardrail or create_project_rule instead, which is the main ambiguity for this tool family.

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