Create Capacities object from Markdown

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

Beyond annotations (which are readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description reveals that Markdown conversion is 'lossy' for specific styling elements and instructs the agent to inspect a 'lossReport' in the response. This adds critical behavioral context about what information may be lost and how to detect it, which annotations do not cover.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first immediately states the purpose, and the second delivers usage guidelines and behavioral warnings. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it vs. alternatives, behavioral caveats, and references the lossReport. The output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The description adequately fills gaps beyond the schema and annotations.

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 each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. While it sets general context, it meets the baseline expectation of 3 for a fully covered 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 'Explicitly create a Capacities object from a Markdown body', using a specific verb (create) and resource (Capacities object from Markdown). It also directly distinguishes from the sibling tool create_object by mentioning the 'preferred structural JSON-block workflow', making the agent aware of which tool to choose.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool (Markdown body) and when not to use it (when exact styling of underline, toggle details, Grid layout, or HTML background colors is needed). It names the alternative tool (create_object) and provides actionable guidance to 'inspect lossReport' after conversion, giving clear decision criteria.

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