Create an eval config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it validates the config and screens examples for personal data and secrets, and it returns (rather than persists) the config, plus the security constraint that keys are referenced by environment variable name only.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action (assemble), followed by the processing guarantee (validate/screen) and the output/security note. No filler or repetition; each sentence earns a place, though the phrasing is densely packed.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, yet the description still says the config is returned for saving as JSON. Together with the validation/screening disclosure and annotation coverage of safety, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 candidates, examples, checks, settings, thresholds and enums thoroughly. The description restates the top-level triple (candidates, examples, settings) and reinforces the env-var-only convention for api_key_env, which the schema also states, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the structured data.

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 concrete verb and resource: assemble an eval config from candidates, examples with checks, and settings, then validate and screen it. It also names what the output is for (eval_models.py), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from validate_eval_config or draft_eval_examples, and the 'screen for personal data and secrets' step overlaps with the scan_sensitive_data sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it's the assembly step, and the output is meant to be saved as JSON for eval_models.py. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to validate_eval_config or draft_eval_examples, even though the description mentions validation as if it were an internal step.

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