splithub_create_property

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

No annotations are provided, and the description says nothing about whether invocations still succeed, whether it is a mutation with side effects, or how it behaves differently from the target. Only the deprecation itself is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the deprecation warning and the redirect come first.

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 deprecation shim the redirect is sufficient to prevent misuse, but with 6 low-coverage parameters, no annotations, and no statement of whether the call still works or errors, it leaves gaps for an agent that does invoke it.

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 33% (name, goals, status, and description are undocumented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Since it defers to the sibling, an agent gets no help from this text on how the six parameters behave.

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 identifies this as the legacy alias of splithub_property_create, so an agent can infer it creates a property. It doesn't state a verb-and-resource directly, but the reference to the canonical tool and the sibling list make it unambiguous which capability it wraps.

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 names the replacement tool and directs the agent to call splithub_property_create instead, with a stated lifetime ('kept for one release'). This is exactly the when-not-to-use / use-alternative routing an agent needs.

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