create_macro

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create', such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It provides no additional transparency beyond what annotations already 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?

The description is extremely brief (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not front-load any useful details beyond the bare action. While there is no fluff, the content is so minimal that it fails to inform the agent effectively.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not mention return values, potential errors, or any required context. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based solely on this description; it would need to infer everything from the schema.

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 fully documents the three parameters (title, actions, description). The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate or what constitutes valid input, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new macro' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'create_macro'. It states the verb and resource but adds no distinction from sibling tools like update_macro or delete_macro beyond the verb itself, which is already implied by the name. This borders on tautology, offering minimal semantic value.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclude any cases. An agent has no context to decide between create_macro and other macro operations, such as update_macro or list_macros.

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