code.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions creation methods. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the return value looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'code node' is in this system, what happens after creation, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. The parameter guidance is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the OR relationship between filePath and name+content, which clarifies the mutual exclusivity not evident from the schema alone. This earns the baseline 3 for good schema coverage with some added semantic context.

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 code node') and distinguishes between two creation methods (bidirectional file sync vs. direct creation). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'code.createBatch' or 'code.createBatchGrouped', but the verb+resource+method specificity is strong.

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 clear guidance on when to use each parameter combination (filePath for sync, name+content for direct creation). It doesn't mention when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code.createBatch' or 'code.setCode', but the usage context is well-defined.

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