modx_create_element

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not the permission requirements, not whether the new element is published/active by default, not what happens on a name collision, not whether the type determines which of the 34 parameters are meaningful. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical gap.

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 technically brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single eight-word sentence for a 34-parameter polymorphic mutation tool that needs front-loaded explanation of the type fan-out and required fields.

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 34 parameters, a 7-value enum, a nested _runtime_preconditions object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain per-type requirements and mutation side effects. It explains none of these, so an agent cannot call this tool correctly without trial and error.

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 3% across 34 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever — it does not explain the type enum, that many fields (price, remains, vendor, made_in, article) look category- or product-specific, or that only name and type are required. Nothing compensates for the near-total absence of schema documentation.

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 sentence names a verb and resource ("Create a new MODX element"), so the basic operation is identifiable, but "element" is never defined and the schema reveals it spans seven wildly different types (chunk, snippet, template, resource, tv, category, plugin). Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like modx_duplicate_element or modx_update_element, so the agent must guess at scope.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named, despite a large sibling set that includes modx_duplicate_element, modx_update_element, and modx_run_processor, all of which overlap with creation workflows. The agent is left to infer that this is the creation path.

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