create_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: a .xci file is written into the project's IP sources fileset, and the downstream workflow is named. It does not cover error behavior if the IP already exists, or what is returned, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: creation, artifact produced, and the follow-up workflow. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the artifact produced and the sequencing an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around return values and failure modes for pre-existing IP instance names, but nothing critical for invocation is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (vendor, ip_name, library, version, module_name) has a description with defaults and examples, so the description needn't restate them. It adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create an IP from the Xilinx IP catalog') with a concrete artifact outcome ('Generates a .xci file in the project's IP sources fileset'). It clearly positions itself relative to related tools (configure_ip, generate_ip_target, synth_ip) so an agent can distinguish this creation step from the configuration and generation steps.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up sequence ('Use configure_ip + generate_ip_target afterwards, then run synth_ip if you want out-of-context synthesis'), giving both the required next steps and a conditional branch. This is direct routing guidance rather than implied usage.

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