create_or_update_intent

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

The description indicates the tool can create or update, implying upsert behavior. It also states the return value is a JSON response with success/failure. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden; it covers the basic behavior but could mention idempotency or conflict resolution.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, with no unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description covers all parameters and the return format. It is mostly complete, though additional details about update behavior or error conditions would improve completeness.

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 adds meaning for icon_url by noting it is optional and should only be sent when explicitly provided. For other parameters, it provides minimal explanations that mostly restate the property names, offering little additional value beyond 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 clearly states the tool creates or updates an intent, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_intent and list_all_intents.

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 provides a clear usage guideline for icon_url, stating it should never be sent unless explicitly provided. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_intent or list_all_intents.

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