create_demand_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new demand endpoint' and gives no information about required setup, side effects, validation rules, whether the endpoint is active immediately, or what response to expect. For a mutation with 15 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise and easy to scan. However, it offers no additional context beyond the tool name, so while it earns full marks for brevity, it lacks informative substance that would make it more valuable.

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 complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal to be considered complete. It does not explain what a demand endpoint is, what the return value will be, or what consequences creation has. The schema covers parameter semantics but not the operational context, so the description should do more.

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%, so the structured schema already documents every parameter. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema compensates fully with descriptions, enums, and required fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the exact resource ('demand endpoint'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like update_demand_endpoint, delete_demand_endpoint, and get_demand_endpoint. The word 'new' reinforces the creation intent. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing demand_source), nor does it explain when a create operation is appropriate compared to update or list operations. The only implied usage is 'when you need to create a new endpoint,' which is not explicit enough.

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