create_demand

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true configuration requirement and identifies the target table dmn_demand, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not describe side effects or return behavior, but this is less critical given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the precondition. No wasted words.

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 operation with a nested fields object and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and environment prerequisite. However, it does not clarify the return value, valid field names for the nested object, or success/failure behavior, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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% and documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the 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?

States the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'SPM demand (dmn_demand)', which distinguishes it from the sibling list_demands by operation. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or describe scope beyond the target table.

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?

Provides a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_demands or other create alternatives. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided.

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