create_libraries

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the basic side-effect profile. The description adds the HTTP method and a schema-discovery instruction, but does not explain response behavior, error cases, or consequences of repeated calls. This is acceptable given the annotations but adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, the endpoint next, and the args section is minimal. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant prose or filler.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves the actual creation payload entirely undocumented and relies on the agent to query GET/schema at call time. This is workable but not complete on its own, so it barely meets the minimum viable bar.

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 0%: the only parameter, body, is an opaque additionalProperties object with no field descriptions. The description repeats that body is a 'Request payload' and points to GET/schema for field discovery, which is helpful meta-guidance but does not actually describe what the body must contain. Low-coverage schemas require the description to compensate, and this one only defers the work rather than supplying semantics.

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 opening sentence 'Create a new library on server' names a specific action and resource, and the POST /api/libraries line makes the target unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling creation tools like create_collections or create_users without needing to open their schemas.

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 implies usage: use this when creating a new library. It also gives a preparatory instruction to read the GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the body. However, it does not list alternatives or state when this tool should not be used, so guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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