Filter Create

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that filter criteria are optional and AND-combined, but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, permissions, or what is returned on success.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the parenthetical clarification placed immediately after. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits duplicate-name semantics, error conditions, and confirmation/return behavior. The thorough input schema compensates for parameter documentation, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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% and the schema itself documents rich search syntax and date formats, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the optionality/AND-combination rule, which is marginal value on top of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a conversation filter') and clarifies with the appositive 'a named view in the inbox,' which tells an agent what a filter actually is. It distinguishes itself adequately from filter_get/filter_list, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling filter_update, which is the nearest ambiguity.

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 only guidance offered is about parameter behavior ('All criteria are optional and combine'), not about when to choose this tool. There is no statement of when to use filter_create vs. filter_update (e.g., whether it fails or overwrites when a filter with the same name exists), so the agent must infer routing.

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