create_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds nothing further: no mention of required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, what happens with the free-form 'fields' and 'links' payloads, or what a successful create returns.

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 with zero waste and the verb is front-loaded. However, for a tool with a free-form fields bag and nested link objects, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

Against a 4-parameter schema with nested objects, a polymorphic 'fields' bag and no output schema, the one-line description leaves major gaps: how the different entity types differ, what fields apply to which type, and how links should be formed. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the enum and the nested links/fields objects. The description merely repeats the entityType enum values and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and enumerates the three creatable resource types ('project, portfolio or goal'), which maps directly to the entityType enum and separates it from narrower siblings like create_project or create_board. It does not explain, however, why an agent would call create_entity instead of the sibling create_project when creating a project.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the sibling create_project/create_board tools, prerequisites, or permissions, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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