create_stanza

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an extra side effect (why-log entry) and a policy constraint, but it does not explain what 'review policy' means, whether duplicate stanza_id values fail, or whether the operation is reversible. Some behavior is transparent, but important creation semantics are missing.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the two most important caveats: no project linking and review policy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves critical gaps: what the required parameters mean, what the review policy implies for the caller, and what happens on duplicate stanza_id. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but it does not fill the semantic gaps elsewhere.

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 must compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It only hints at the 'why' parameter via 'append a why-log entry' and does not explain stanza_id, title, description, content, tags, or roles. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a stanza' and adds a distinguishing side effect ('append a why-log entry'). It also explicitly says what it does not do ('Does not link it to a project'), which separates it clearly from sibling tools like link_stanza.

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 gives useful usage context: it creates a stanza, does not handle project linking, and is subject to review policy. It does not explicitly name alternatives like link_stanza, but the 'Does not link it to a project' statement gives a clear exclusion and enough context for an agent to route correctly.

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