Create Chat

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

Annotations already carry the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Create' is consistent with that. It adds the 1:1 vs group mode distinction and topic optionality as useful behavioral context, but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as duplicate-chat handling or what occurs when a chat already exists between the given users.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the mode distinction (1:1 vs group) and topic optionality each earn their place without redundancy.

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?

Moderate complexity with clear schema and annotations, and no output schema, so return-format documentation is not expected. The description covers the primary creation semantics well. The main gaps are edge cases like duplicate-chat behavior, but these are minor given the openWorldHint annotation and non-destructive mutation profile.

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 100%, so all three parameters (topic, tenantId, userEmails) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the relationship between userEmails count and chat type (1:1 requires one other user) and topic's optionality, which adds minor semantic value but does not go beyond the schema baseline.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Create a new chat conversation.' It adds a valuable distinction between 1:1 and group chats and notes topic optionality. No competing creation tool exists among siblings, so differentiation is less critical, but the description is specific and unambiguous about what it creates.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description never mentions how it relates to sibling tools like list_chats, send_chat_message, or get_chat_messages. An agent must infer from context that this is the chat-creation entry point.

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