Make a record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context on top: records land on their own page and in that type's listing, field values must satisfy the type's schema in the catalogue (a validation failure mode), and it returns the new id and page. It does not warn that repeat calls create duplicates despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, the validation rule and the return value. Nothing is repeated or padded; the "whatever the workspace declares" phrasing is slightly loose but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers return values (id and page), and annotations carry the safety profile, so the core need is met for a 2-parameter create. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent how this differs from import_records or update_record.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it ties the `fields` object to the type's schema in the catalogue and frames the `type` enum as workspace-declared rather than fixed. That is useful framing the schema alone does not convey.

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 record of a content type") and enumerates examples (note, task) plus the resulting location (/t/<type>), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not name or contrast any sibling (update_record, import_records, add_type), so differentiation is left to inference from the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like update_record, import_records and find_records in the same namespace, the description never says when to create a single record rather than import a batch or update an existing one.

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