appflowy_create_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses creation and return of chat_id, but lacks details on side effects (e.g.,persistence, resource consumption), permissions required, or lifecycle expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose, then optional parameter info, then return value. No superfluous words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, one optional parameter, and the return value, but omits details about the required workspace_id and name parameters, and does not address behavioral implications.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0% per context, the description adds meaning to rag_ids by calling them 'page view ids' and explaining their use. However, it does not describe workspace_id or name beyond what the schema implies.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'AI chat in a workspace', distinguishing it from sibling tools like appflowy_chat_ask (ask), appflowy_delete_chat (delete), and appflowy_get_chat_settings (get).

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 mentioning optional rag_ids and returning chat_id for follow-up calls, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like appflowy_chat_ask for existing chats or when not to use it.

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