create_ranking_formula

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'confirmed' requirement but fails to explain side effects, destructions, or authorization beyond the access_token parameter. For a creation tool, more details about what happens upon creation are expected.

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 very concise with two sentences and no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less structured for complex parameter understanding.

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 is severely lacking given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It does not explain what a ranking formula is, how to choose formula_type, or what the output will be, leaving the agent mostly blind.

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 only 14% (only 'name' has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for parameters like custom_pql, formula_type, or custom_field_name, leaving the agent without essential context to set these values correctly.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'ranking formula' within the context of 'Experience Decisioning'. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_collection or create_eligibility_rule, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires confirmed: true to execute.' This provides a condition for successful invocation but offers no advice on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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