splithub_property_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses that the config file is mutated and reloaded for verification, that ids are generated (sh-x1h78w) unless supplied, what cloud mode does immediately without a push, and how to recover from a missing API key. It never states what happens if the id already exists or whether a name is required, which are the main remaining behavioral unknowns.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the rest is a dense run-on that drifts into SDK wiring instructions (the SplitHubProvider snippet, data-property attribute) that are documentation for the integrating app rather than help in invoking this tool. Several parentheticals could be trimmed without losing selection signal.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the write behavior and post-call steps well, but omits three parameters' semantics (name, status, description) and gives only a hint at the return shape ('comes back as property'). Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains id generation ('unless given'), that it 'comes back as property', and that goals default to the whole project ('Every goal of the project counts as a conversion unless goals narrows them'). It says nothing about name, status, or description, and only implies kind via the React Native/Expo sentence, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

A specific verb and resource: 'Add an analytics property to splithub.config.ts, checked by reloading the file' names both the object and the persistence target. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling splithub_create_property, which an agent will have to disambiguate on its own.

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?

Operational guidance is present ('In cloud mode it is created in the cloud at once (live: applied), so no push is needed: tell the user to deploy'; 'If live names a missing API key, log in and call again (or push)'), which tells the agent what happens after the call. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over splithub_create_property or splithub_set_property_status – the closest sibling is never mentioned.

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