create_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it creates a new document (implying a write/mutation operation), automatically tracks sessions (no session_id needed), and returns a specific JSON structure. It could improve by mentioning permissions, error cases, or rate limits, but covers essential operational context.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, behavioral note, parameter details, and return format. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels into the flow. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted text.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema provided, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, parameters, and return values, covering all necessary aspects for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without relying on structured fields.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by listing all 8 parameters in the 'Args' section with clear explanations (e.g., 'title: Document title (required)', 'date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'). It also notes that 'ctx' is auto-injected and 'title' is required, adding crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'creates a new IDS document for this session' with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('IDS document'), and mentions session tracking. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_specification' or 'load_ids', which might also involve IDS document operations.

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 implies usage by stating 'for this session' and that 'Session is automatically tracked by FastMCP', suggesting it's for creating new documents within a tracked context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'load_ids' (for existing documents) or 'add_specification' (for modifying documents), leaving some ambiguity.

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