Batch Create Funnels

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

Annotations only convey read/write/destructive flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of execution semantics. It discloses three non-obvious behaviors: sequential creation to respect rate limits, independent partial failures ('If one fails, the others still proceed'), and a success/failure summary return. This goes beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't touch idempotency consequences (re-running creates duplicates, consistent with idempotentHint=false).

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how it executes, and what it returns. The key scoping phrase ('at once') and the failure behavior are front-loaded. Zero filler.

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 mutation tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: batching, rate-limit handling, partial failure, and the success/failure summary. The exact return shape is unspecified, but the description at least names the summary concept that an output schema would otherwise carry. The only notable omission is guidance on duplicate-call consequences given idempotentHint=false.

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% — siteId and funnels, including nested step fields, enums, wildcard semantics, and min/max constraints, are all fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Create multiple funnels at once') that states exactly what the tool does. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling rybbit_create_funnel via the quantity/batching semantics, and from rybbit_batch_create_goals by the resource type. No ambiguity remains.

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 opening phrase 'Create multiple funnels at once' establishes the batch-use context and implies this tool over the single-record sibling rybbit_create_funnel, while the rate-limit and partial-failure sentences tell the agent when batching is the safer choice. However, it never explicitly names the single-create alternative or states an exclusion condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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