vcv_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that module ids, plugin versions, and positions are auto-filled, and that cables reference modules by index. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, failure conditions, or other side effects beyond creating a file.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding a meaningful behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The description adequately covers the main creation behavior and the module/cable relationship, and an output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated. However, it omits overwrite semantics and the meaning of rack_version, which an agent needs to safely invoke the tool on an existing file.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for modules and cables by explaining auto-fill behavior and index-based cable references. However, path, overwrite, and rack_version are left unexplained, leaving several parameters semantically ambiguous.

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 opens with 'Create a new .vcv file', which names a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the input is a list of modules and cables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_read, vcv_write, vcv_validate, and vcv_library_search.

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 the tool is for generating a .vcv patch file from structured module/cable data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over vcv_write or mention prerequisites such as plugin availability. Usage context is present but exclusions and alternatives are not.

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