shelf_create_kit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/open-world profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns the created kit and that asset inclusion can happen at creation time, but says nothing about required permissions, validation failures, or the effect of omitted orgId.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, which caps it below 5.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low parameter documentation, the description is thin. It does tell the agent a kit object is returned, but not enough about the optional parameters or mutation behavior to call this complete.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description is expected to compensate but does not. It only gestures at assetIds/quantities via 'filled with assets', leaving orgId, categoryId, locationId, and the quantities semantics entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new kit') and adds scope ('optionally filled with assets right away'), which distinguishes it from shelf_kit_add_assets in spirit. However, it never names siblings or clarifies when to create-with-assets versus create-then-add, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'optionally filled with assets right away' faintly implies the create-empty-then-add path, but the agent must infer it.

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