dl_object_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds that it saves AND reads back, and that dependencies are honored, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about auth, permissions, or failure 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and outcome, but the follow-up sentences are dense jargon ('top-level object_type/name/client_ref and nested dataset.connection_id/source/fields') that requires re-reading. Nothing is wasted, yet clarity could improve with structure.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description partially fills the gap on drafts but leaves destination, operation_id, and delivery_mode unexplained. An agent can call it but must guess at destination shape and the read-back return.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does explain the drafts item shape (artifact_path as absolute path, top-level object_type/name/client_ref, nested dataset fields, override rules). However it says nothing about the required destination object (workbook_id/collection_id/path variants), operation_id, or delivery_mode, leaving half the contract opaque.

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?

States a clear verb (Create) and two resource types (typed DataLens drafts, local JSON artifact references), which reads distinctly against siblings like dl_object_get, dl_object_update, and dl_object_publish. Differentiation is implied by the create semantics rather than stated, so it falls short of 5.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over dl_object_update, dl_object_publish, or dl_compile_recipe, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. 'In dependency order' hints at sequencing but is not a usage rule.

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