create_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the call returns the created system details and that the operation creates a new entity, but it omits permissions/authentication requirements, error or duplicate-title behavior, and whether the system is created in a draft or active state.

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 short sentences with zero filler: what it does, what it returns, and where to go for more. The scope statement and the alternative routing are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and sibling routing adequately. It stops short of behavioral caveats (auth, validation, side effects) that would make it fully self-sufficient without annotations.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'title'. The description's phrase 'with a given title' adds no format, constraint, or uniqueness semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 data system') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_system_advanced' by scope of details. An agent can tell this apart from the other create/list/get siblings without opening any schema.

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 alternative ('create_system_advanced') and the condition that selects it ('For adding extended details (owner, hosting, processors, etc.)'). It lacks an explicit inverse statement of when this basic variant is preferred, but the routing intent is clear.

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