openemis_create

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: HTTP method, resource acceptance criteria, response envelope structure, and critical security warning about prompt injection in returned data. No contradictions.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and constraints. The security warning, while lengthy, is essential for safe usage. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly more concise but earns its length.

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?

Given no output schema and complex security concerns, the description provides comprehensive context: response envelope, resource constraints, and adversarial text handling. Lacks specific error handling or success details, but overall adequate for safe 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters; it restates 'JSON fields to POST' for body, which is similar to schema description. The resource pattern constraint is already in 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?

Clearly states the tool creates a record via POST on a specific endpoint pattern. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying which resources are accepted (those with POST in manifest) and blocks workflow-controlled ones, referencing alternative playbooks.

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 tells when not to use (workflow-controlled resources) and what to use instead (playbooks). Also implies usage for resources with POST in manifest. Provides clear decision guidance.

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