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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that fragment names must be unique per team, which is already stated in the schema. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate name, authorization requirements, or return behavior.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes value. It is concise without sacrificing necessary context about reuse and uniqueness.

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 tool has moderate complexity due to the nested steps array, but the schema covers the parameter details. There is no output schema, but for a creation tool, return values are often implicitly understood. The description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., team context) or effects on existing fragments, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, including nested step properties. Therefore, the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('page fragment') and clarifies what a page fragment is ('reusable step sequence') and its intended use ('shared across multiple Journeys'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_journey or update_page_fragment.

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 when to use this tool: to define a reusable step sequence for use in multiple Journeys. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear given sibling tools like create_journey and update_page_fragment. Lacks explicit exclusion but sufficient guidance.

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