ipt_create_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'writes to the IPT', which signals mutation, but it does not disclose auth requirements, reversibility, side effects (e.g., whether the resource is immediately accessible), or what happens on import.

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 the state-changing prefix '[writes to the IPT]' and a clear, specific purpose. No filler or redundant detail, achieving maximum information density.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 67% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not address return values, error cases, permissions, or the import behavior (e.g., validation, mapping), leaving an agent with significant gaps for safe and 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 67%, and the schema already documents shortname and dwcaPath. The description adds useful semantics by implying dwcaPath is optional ('empty or importing'), but it does not explain the type enum or shortname constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Create a resource') and adds meaningful specifics: empty or importing a Darwin Core Archive from a local path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ipt_delete_resource or ipt_add_source, which deal with different objects/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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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