openpanel_create_funnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the functional purpose (tracking user journeys) but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a funnel with the same name exists, error conditions, or the return value format.

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 core sentence is efficiently structured as a single unit, but the leading '[UNIFIED]' tag is wasteful metadata that does nothing to help tool selection. The sentence is front-loaded with the action verb, which is good.

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 zero schema description coverage across five parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It should explain the expected shape of the 'steps' array items, valid values for 'site', and what the optional 'window_days' parameter controls (conversion window duration).

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While it semantically links 'steps' to 'user journey' implicitly, it completely fails to explain the other four parameters: what 'site' refers to (domain vs ID), the format of 'project_id', the naming constraints for 'name', or that 'window_days' represents a conversion attribution window.

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 states a clear verb ('Create'), resource ('funnel'), and purpose ('track user journey through steps'). However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise that adds no semantic value, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openpanel_update_funnel' or 'openpanel_list_funnels'.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus 'openpanel_update_funnel' or when an existing funnel should be updated instead of created. Does not mention prerequisites like having a valid project_id or what constitutes a valid funnel configuration.

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