create_postal_code_target

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the mutation implied by the tool name and provides no information about idempotency, validation rules, required permissions, or side effects. This adds zero value beyond the name.

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, concise sentence with the key verb 'Create' front-loaded. It is appropriately sized and contains no waste, though it could add more contextual value within the same brevity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the intended use of a postal code target (e.g., geo-targeting by postal code) and what the create operation returns or requires. The current one-liner is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the broader system.

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 all parameters (label, inclusive, locations) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter details, but per the rubric the baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 postal code target' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (postal code target). It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools such as update_postal_code_target, get_postal_code_target, and list_postal_code_targets through the Create prefix.

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 like update_postal_code_target for existing targets. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a target should already exist for updates, or any context about target creation workflows.

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