create_selection_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the confirmation requirement, a key behavioral trait, but fails to mention other important aspects such as idempotency, whether it updates or creates, or error conditions. The disclosure is partially transparent but has clear gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core action; the second provides a critical prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 the tool's 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential components and a key constraint but omits explanation of name, priority, description, and access_token. It adequately sets context for a creation tool but lacks completeness in detailing all inputs. The sibling context helps but does not compensate fully.

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 description adds meaning for three parameters (collection, eligibility rule, ranking formula) and the confirmed flag, aligning with the schema's 50% coverage. However, it does not explain the remaining parameters (name, priority, description, access_token), which are either required or have defaults. The added value is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('wire') and resource ('selection strategy'), listing the three components it assembles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create individual components (e.g., create_collection, create_eligibility_rule).

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 includes a critical usage condition ('Requires confirmed: true to execute'), which is essential for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not guidance or prerequisites beyond the confirmation flag.

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