signavio_create_dictionary_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what the response might look like (e.g., success confirmation or entry ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or return values, and it lacks context about the Signavio platform. Given the complexity of creating a resource with multiple parameters, more detail is needed for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'title' and 'category' are well-documented there. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'attachments' or constraints on 'category' values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create a new dictionary entry' clearly states the action (create) and resource (dictionary entry), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'signavio_create_dictionary_category' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what a 'dictionary entry' represents in the Signavio context, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry' or 'signavio_search_dictionary'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication or an existing category) or typical use cases, offering minimal direction for an AI agent.

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