Create tribe

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses important behavioral details: private tribes are hidden from browsing and search, joinable only by invitation, and return a shareUrl that is view-only and revocable via rotation. This adds genuine context beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not cover all possible side effects or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core action before explaining the private-tribe nuances. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the shareUrl behavior is explained in a compact but complete way without unnecessary fluff.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by mentioning that a private tribe answers with a shareUrl. It covers the most important behavioral outcomes (privacy, joining, shareUrl rotation). It could have explicitly stated a general response for public tribes, but the core creation context is well covered.

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?

The input schema already fully documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for isPublic, explaining the consequences of setting it to false (privacy, invitation-only, shareUrl behavior). This goes beyond the schema's 'Whether the tribe is publicly visible' and justifies a higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Create a new interest-based tribe,' which clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like tribeunal_get_tribe, tribeunal_list_tribes, and tribeunal_join_tribe by focusing on the act of creation. The additional detail about public/private tribes reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it explains when to set isPublic to false for a private tribe and describes the implications (hidden from browsing, joinable by invitation). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but for a creation operation with no direct sibling, the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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