create_event_log_upload_config

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. However, it only restates the action without adding context about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what the tool returns. For a create operation, the description should at least mention the creation behavior and any important consequences.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero unnecessary words. However, it closely mirrors the tool name, offering little additional value, so it is concise but not maximally informative.

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 low complexity, a simple description is acceptable, but the description lacks any context about the tool's position in the CRUD workflow, return value, or prerequisites. No annotations and no output schema increase the need for description-provided context, but the schema and name cover the basic 'create' semantics, making it minimally viable.

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% (each of the 5 parameters has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but since the schema already documents name, format, enabled, frequency, and connection_id, the schema carries the parameter semantics. No additional meaning is provided by the description, preserving the baseline.

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 'Create a new event log upload configuration' uses a specific verb ('create') and a specific resource ('event log upload configuration'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_event_log_upload_configs, get_event_log_upload_config, update_event_log_upload_config, and delete_event_log_upload_config. The action and target are unambiguous.

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, such as when to create a new configuration vs. updating an existing one. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing SFTP connection, or any exclusions. The agent is left without context for choosing this tool appropriately.

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