Create a shared library

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation can notify recipients or change tenant data and requires the operator write opt-in plus confirm. This is valuable context for a destructive, non-idempotent write, though it could be more specific about the nature of notifications or data changes.

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?

Three information-dense sentences front-load the action and endpoint, then add the fields, reference, and safety requirements. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive create with no output schema, it covers the action, endpoint, body fields, auth/confirmation requirement, and side effects. It doesn't describe the response format or failure modes, but the reference link and schema cover much of the operational context.

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%, but the body schema is a generic recursive anyOf, so the description's list of body fields (name, script, plan) adds real meaning. It does not add detail on query parameters, but the schema documents those as having no named parameters.

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 names a precise action and resource ('Create a shared library'), gives the exact HTTP endpoint, and lists the relevant body fields. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling get/modify/delete shared-library tools.

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 gives clear preconditions (operator write opt-in, confirm:true), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool rather than modify_a_shared_library when a shared library already exists. Usage is implied by the verb and resource rather than spelled out.

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