create_nrql_condition

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 states the creation action and does not reveal side effects, prerequisites like an existing policy_id, failure behavior, or whether the operation is irreversible. This is a state-changing operation with no supporting behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, and the action is front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it pushes the burden of context onto the schema and sibling names rather than the description itself.

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 9-parameter create operation with no output schema and no annotations, this description is not complete enough. It omits what a successful call returns, whether the created condition ID is needed for follow-up calls, and how it relates to update/delete sibling operations. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's role in a workflow.

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 input schema already documents all parameters meaningfully. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a NRQL alert condition.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_nrql_condition and delete_nrql_condition. 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no explicit pointer to alternatives such as update_nrql_condition or list_alert_conditions. An agent would have to infer usage context entirely from sibling tool names.

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