Create Lookahead

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive or idempotent. The description adds that it creates a new record and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which aligns with annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, duplicates, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise with five sentences, but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Create a new Lookahead' and 'Creates a new Schedule (Legacy) records' repeat the same idea). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details like required parameters and endpoint information, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 this is a simple creation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, required parameters, success response, and API endpoint. It does not explain the optional parameter or elaborate on return values beyond 'returns the created object', but this is adequate for a creation endpoint with no output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description lists required parameters but does not add new meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. The optional 'copied_from_id' parameter is not mentioned in the description, relying entirely on the 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 the tool creates a new Lookahead for the project, which is a Schedule (Legacy) record. It uses specific verbs ('Create') and identifies the resource ('Lookahead', 'Schedule (Legacy) records'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_lookaheads' and 'create_lookahead_task' by its creation nature and reference to legacy schedule records.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to create a new Schedule (Legacy) records') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools like 'create_lookahead_task' exist but are not contrasted. The guidance is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks exclusions.

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