create_history_output_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool creates a request but does not mention side effects, whether it modifies an existing request, persists anything, or what happens on overwrite. The parameter hints are useful but do not cover the operational behavior of creating a history output request.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a short parameter list. It avoids fluff and each listed parameter has a terse definition. It is close to ideal in size, though the missing param explanations slightly reduce structural completeness.

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 create-type tool with seven parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and an output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits semantics for over half the parameters and provides no guidance on when this request fits into the broader workflow. More context about required setup and the meaning of step_name and model_name is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains variables, region_name, and frequency, which are meaningful additions. However, four of the seven parameters (name, timeout, step_name, model_name) receive no explanation beyond schema defaults, leaving significant gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a history output request.' This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like create_field_output_request and get_history_output, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The args list reinforces the intent by showing request-specific fields like variables and frequency.

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 such as create_field_output_request or when a history output request is appropriate. It only lists parameters without any context about prerequisites like requiring a step or model.

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