Add a kind of record

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the type is 'for everyone' (global/shared visibility) and materialises as a page at /t/<name>. It omits permission requirements and what happens on a duplicate name, so it is solid but not rich.

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, purpose front-loaded ahead of the one actionable instruction. The first sentence is dense but every clause (examples, URL, records, fields) earns its place; 'for everyone' sits slightly awkwardly mid-sentence.

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 creation tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description plus annotations cover the essentials. The main remaining gap is behavior on conflicts (idempotentHint=false, but the description never says whether a duplicate name errors or duplicates), which matters for correct 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 the schema already documents name, properties, description, and the full field sub-schema. The 'Give the title field first' instruction adds ordering emphasis, but it largely restates what the schema already says about the properties array. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Make a new content type') and defines the abstract concept with concrete examples ('habit, contact or recipe') plus concrete consequences (own page at /t/<name>, own records, own fields). An agent can distinguish this from add_field and create_record without opening either schema, since it is explicitly about creating a whole new kind of thing rather than a field or an instance.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for introducing a brand-new record kind when none exists. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace), and no named alternative such as add_field for extending an existing type.

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