create_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the operation writes to disk, adds to FTS5 index, and auto-creates directories. It also states no external auth and no rate limits. While it doesn't describe rollback or concurrency, it provides sufficient detail about side effects.

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 a single paragraph but well-organized, starting with the primary purpose and then detailing parameters and behavior. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds useful information. Could be streamlined, but overall effective.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation type, side effects, parameter constraints, return value, and alternative tools. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the 'destination' enum values ('knowledge', 'project', 'ctxnest') and the conditional requirement for 'project_id' when destination is 'project' or 'ctxnest'. It also clarifies that 'tags' and 'folder' are optional, adding value beyond 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 description clearly states the tool creates a markdown file in the knowledge base or project, specifying the verb 'Create' and the resource 'markdown file'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'update_file' by explicitly mentioning that for modifications, use 'update_file' instead.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool to instantiate new contextual documents or notes. To modify an existing file, use 'update_file' instead.' It also explains when to use the 'project_id' parameter for certain destinations. While not covering all negative cases, it gives clear context for when to choose this tool.

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