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

The description discloses a concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the section id is generated and returned. It also scopes the operation to 'your workspace.' The annotations already signal the mutation profile, so the description adds useful output-behavior context without needing to repeat safety hints.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and resource come first, followed by the key output behavior and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward create tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential action, the returned id, and the next step in the workflow. It does not describe the full response shape or compare against replace_preference_section, but the id mention partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 parameters name, routing_options, and has_custom_routing are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which lands it at the baseline 3.

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 names a specific action and resource: creating a preference section. It also differentiates itself from the sibling create_preference_topic by explicitly pointing topic creation to that tool, and the note that the section id is generated and returned further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear workflow context by instructing the agent to add topics afterwards with create_preference_topic, which implies this tool is only for creating the section itself. It does not enumerate alternatives like replace_preference_section, but the creation-focused verb and the follow-up pointer provide sufficient orientation.

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