Create a routine

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so this is a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds the 'Authorization class: board_or_agent' which is useful context not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like triggering workflows or creating sub-resources.

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 very short (three lines) and front-loaded, but it omits essential information about parameters and usage. Conciseness is valued, but it sacrifices completeness. A few more sentences would improve it without losing brevity.

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's complexity (many params, nested objects, numerous sibling tools for routines), the description is insufficient. It does not explain when to create a routine versus other actions, nor does it clarify the meaning of key fields. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but input semantics are critically missing.

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 many parameters (companyId, title, status, env, goalId, etc.) with complex nested objects, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must rely solely on the schema, which may be insufficient for correct usage. This is a significant gap.

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 'Create a routine' with the HTTP method and path, making the action and resource specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_patch_routines_by_id or pc_get_routines_by_id which are different operations. However, it does not elaborate beyond the title, so it's clear but minimal.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patching or fetching routines). It does not state prerequisites, such as needing a company ID or the required authorization level being board_or_agent. The agent would need to infer context from sibling tool names.

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