Capture Insight

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses a real webhook side-effect and warns about capturing only genuine signal. It also explicitly notes the tool persists to 'the spine' and returns the created insight, which are non-obvious behaviors that annotations do not convey.

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?

Four sentences front-load the purpose, then cover side-effects, parameter guidance, and required fields. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential context. The structure flows logically from what → caution → how → constraint.

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 output schema, the description covers the action, side-effects, parameter sources, required field, and return value ('return the created insight'). It addresses the complexity of 6 parameters by explaining how to populate them, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds value by consolidating the resolution workflow ('Resolve account_id via get_customer_360 and feature_id via list_features') and reinforcing that body is the only required field. It also restates the meaning of 'kind' but the schema already does this; the overall contribution is a slight enhancement over the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Write a piece of customer feedback to the spine...' and clarifies the result ('return the created insight'). It distinguishes from read-only sibling tools like list_insights by explicitly contrasting 'not just reading'. The name and title are fully supported.

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?

It provides clear guidance on what to capture ('only capture genuine signal') and how to resolve optional identifiers via other tools (get_customer_360, list_features). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the 'genuine signal' caution, so it stops short of a full 5.

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