New Poietic design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the main side effect of making the new design current, and 'new empty' signals that this is a non-destructive creation. It does not detail import copy semantics or failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and side effect, and the optional import behavior is placed second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: creation, path, current-design side effect, and optional import. It is slightly incomplete in clarifying what import does to the source planes, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters well. The description adds contextual framing like 'new empty' and 'current design,' but it does not add new parameter-level constraints, formats, or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific imperative and object: 'Create a new empty Stock and Flow design at the given path and make it the current design.' This clearly states the action, resource, and observable side effect, and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like poietic_get_design and poietic_use_design, which operate on existing designs.

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 implies the primary use case — creating a new design and optionally seeding it with imported planes — but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to prefer poietic_import_plane for importing into an existing design instead of using the import parameter here.

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