create_record

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool and discloses almost nothing: no permission or auth requirements, no validation/failure behavior, no statement about whether fields not present in `body` get defaults, and no confirmation of what is returned. The only behavioral signal is the implicit fact that it writes, which is a significant gap for a create operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented, which covers the mechanical parts. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and several sibling write tools, the description omits error behavior, prerequisites, and sibling routing, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 `body`, `collection`, `expand`, and `fields` are already documented in the schema, including the key-value example for `body`. The description adds no additional meaning about how `body` must match collection fields or how `expand`/`fields` interact with the response, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Create a new record in a collection"), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_record or list_records. It does not differentiate from update_record or batch_records, so an agent must infer that this creates exactly one record while batch_records handles multiples.

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 at all, no mention of when to prefer batch_records for multiple records, and no note that update_record should be used for existing records. The agent is left to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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