Create Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no mention of what is created, what a duplicate name does, or any side effects — so it fails to add value on top of the 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?

It is a single short sentence, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded detail or structure for the agent to act on.

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 write tool with a deeply nested payload and an output schema present, the description leaves major gaps: what a catalog is in this product, required fields, slug derivation, and external_id uniqueness constraints are all unstated. An agent would have to read the nested schema closely to call this correctly.

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?

There is one parameter, a nested object, with 0% top-level schema description coverage. The description says only "from provided data," adding no meaning: it does not mention that `name` is required, that `slug` is deprecated and derived from `name`, or that `external_id` must be unique within the team, even though those nested-field descriptions exist in the schema.

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 verb+resource ("Creates a new catalog") is identifiable, but the trailing "from provided data" is filler that adds nothing. It does not distinguish this tool from the many adjacent creators such as create_catalog_entity, create_catalog_property, or update_catalog, so an agent cannot tell scope apart from siblings on the description alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus update_catalog, list_catalogs, or create_catalog_entity. No prerequisites (permissions, uniqueness of name/external_id, whether a team context is required) are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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