create_structured_snippet_assets

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 that the tool creates something, implying mutation, but does not describe any side effects, required permissions, response behavior, or constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It restates the tool name without earning its place, providing zero new information. This is similar to the 'Process' example where extreme brevity is a deficiency, not a strength.

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 moderate complexity (nested snippets array, enums, two required parameters), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what structured snippets are, how to structure the input, or what the tool returns. With no annotations or output schema, the description leaves the agent with no way to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for only customerId (50% coverage), leaving the crucial 'snippets' array with its nested header enum and values array undocumented. The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the schema's incomplete coverage.

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 structured snippet extensions' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'create_structured_snippet_assets', merely substituting 'assets' with 'extensions'. It does not add specificity or differentiate from sibling tools like create_sitelink_extensions or create_callout_extensions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without any context about appropriate use cases or strategic fit among the many extension-creation tools.

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