create

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions defaults merging, action_id for context, and return format ({id, display_name} or {error}), but does not clarify side effects (e.g., that it modifies state) or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). This is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 reasonably concise, with a key usage hint at the beginning and clear parameter explanations. It uses an emoji to draw attention, and no sentences are wasted. Could be slightly shorter but is well-organized.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return format and parameter semantics adequately. However, it does not explain error conditions beyond '{error}', and lacks details on the 'model' parameter or any limitations. For a simple create tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 0%, so the description adds significant value. It explains that 'values' are form-view fields only, 'context' is for wizard models, and 'action_id' includes action context. The 'model' parameter is not described but its role is implied. This substantially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new record,' which is a specific verb+resource. The note about checking find_skill/list_workflows helps differentiate from recipe-related tools, but the purpose is generic and does not distinguish between record types.

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 a usage hint to check find_skill/list_workflows before multi-step work, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like update or archive. It implies usage for simple record creation with optional context parameters.

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