invariance_eval_suite_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds context that suites are legacy, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether creation is idempotent, permissions required, or what the response looks like). Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and the key usage guidance front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 a single parameter, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and points to the alternative. The only gap is the lack of information about the return value (the created suite object), but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, this is not critical.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter 'body', explaining it's a JSON string with required 'name' and optional fields. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it remains at the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'eval suite', and further clarifies it as 'the legacy grouping for cases + runs'. It distinguishes from the preferred 'datasets' alternative, so an agent can tell it apart from invariance_eval_dataset_create and other suite-related tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'New work should generally prefer datasets; suites remain for back-compat and curated case sets.' This gives clear guidance and points to the alternative (datasets), which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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