strapi_create_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action implied by the name, offering no insights into side effects, authentication requirements, response shape, or any constraints. This is essentially a tautology with no added transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information it conveys. However, it borders on under-specification, lacking any explanatory context, which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how this fits into the Strapi API workflow. The rich sibling list and schema partially compensate, but the description itself fails to provide situational context.

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 for all three parameters, including examples for queryJson and contentType. According to the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither improves nor worsens the baseline.

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's function: 'Create a Strapi entry using the REST API.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and identifies the resource ('Strapi entry'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like strapi_update_entry or strapi_delete_entry. However, it lacks additional details such as the required contentType or data structure, so it is not as rich as a top-tier example.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or alternatives like strapi_request for custom operations. The phrase 'using the REST API' hints at a mechanism but not at decision-making context.

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