create_system

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

Annotations already mark this as not read-only and not destructive, so the description only needs to add context; it does add that the system is empty and that system_id is returned. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or requirements beyond the schema. 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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the second sentence is syntactically awkward and unclear, which undermines the message. It is short, but not every word earns its place.

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?

Given a 2-parameter schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the core is covered, but the ambiguous relationship to load_system leaves a real gap: an agent cannot confidently decide between create_system and load_system. This prevents a higher score.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (name and description) with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

The first sentence uses a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('new empty system'), and states the return value ('system_id'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings. The second sentence is confusing but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 says 'For building step by step' and mentions load_system, implying a comparison, but it never explicitly states when to use create_system instead of load_system or other siblings. The phrase 'a new system is quicker as one load_system call' is grammatically ambiguous, leaving the routing rule unclear.

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