Create Capacities object from Markdown

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

Beyond the write operation implied by annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: Markdown conversion is lossy for specific styling and layout elements, and a lossReport is produced. This gives the agent critical awareness of output limitations and a follow-up action.

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, front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second provides the critical alternative and caveat. No wasted words.

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 high schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description adds the key context needed: when to prefer create_object, the lossy nature of Markdown conversion, and the lossReport instruction. It is complete for this complexity level.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; its 'Markdown body' phrase and lossiness warning relate to the markdown parameter's limitations but do not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+method: 'Explicitly create a Capacities object from a Markdown body.' It clearly distinguishes from create_object by highlighting the Markdown-based workflow and the structural JSON alternative.

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 names create_object as the preferred alternative for structural JSON-block workflows and gives concrete when-not conditions (lossy for exact underline styling, toggle details, Grid layout, HTML background colors) along with an action ('inspect lossReport'). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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