create_concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool fails if the concept already exists, preventing accidental overwrites. It also provides a fallback (update_concept). While it doesn't cover every possible side effect, the most important failure mode is clearly stated, which is above baseline for a create operation.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place. The failure condition and alternative are conveyed with zero waste.

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?

The description is highly complete for an 8-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and sibling context. It covers the core purpose, usage distinction, and failure mode. Minor gaps like OKF-specific conventions are addressed by the schema, so the description is sufficient to guide invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema's existing thorough explanations (e.g., concept_id path, type examples). It doesn't compensate with extra semantics but doesn't need to given the schema quality.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new OKF concept document') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_concept by stating 'use update_concept to modify existing ones.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 states when to use this tool (for new concepts) and when to use the alternative ('Fails if the concept already exists — use update_concept to modify existing ones'). This covers both when and when-not, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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