create_family

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: idempotency ('or return') and durability ('durable'). However, it omits other relevant behavior such as permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on duplicate creation, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and many related sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and differentiation from alternatives. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but not with selection or 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention family_key, title, scope_ids, or project_ids at all, leaving their semantics entirely to their names and schema titles.

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 ('Create or return') and names a concrete resource ('durable contract/work family'), making the tool's basic function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like register_contract or create_project, but the resource type is distinct enough to avoid immediate confusion.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_contract or create_project. The phrase 'durable contract/work family' implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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