create-subscription

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with creating a subscription. The description adds behavioral context: required body fields, expiration constraints, and permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations. However, it could disclose more about the creation process (e.g., validation token flow) but this is covered by the schema.

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 relatively long with multiple paragraphs, but it is well-structured with a tip section and references to external docs. It could be more concise, e.g., by moving lengthy external doc references to a link. The front-loaded purpose is good, but overall density could be reduced.

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?

The description fails to explain the return value of the tool. Since there is no output schema, the description should state that a subscription object is returned with properties like id, expirationDateTime, etc. It also omits details about lifecycleNotificationUrl when required. The provided context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for each property, but the description adds value by summarizing required fields and their formats (e.g., changeType comma-separated, notificationUrl must be HTTPS with token echo). Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by giving a compact guide for the most critical parameters.

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 that the tool subscribes a listener to receive change notifications for a specified resource in Microsoft Graph. The tip section lists required fields and examples, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-subscription, update-subscription, and delete-subscription by focusing solely on creation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create webhook subscriptions) and specifies prerequisites (caller must have read permission for the target resource). It references external documentation for supported resources and limitations. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear.

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