systems_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the context that the resulting system is 'saved' and configured from an object, which is useful, but it does not disclose return values, validation, uniqueness constraints, or side effects beyond creation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the opaque config parameter and the lack of other context, the brevity leaves important information out; it is concise but slightly under-structured for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema and an open-ended config object, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently construct a valid call. It omits return behavior, config semantics, and how this creation interacts with systems_apply, systems_update, or scoring workflows.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It only mentions 'config object', giving no detail about the required name, the optional description, or the actual shape/fields expected inside config. This is insufficient for a permissive additionalProperties object.

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 a saved scoring system. It specifies the resource ('scoring system') and the input source ('config object'), and the 'create' verb naturally distinguishes it from sibling operations like systems_update, systems_delete, and systems_apply.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as systems_update, systems_apply, or score_compute. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision rules are provided, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and siblings.

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