cdp_create_mailer_identifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the identifier is persistent, rate limits, or what the response contains. The mention of 'POST /v2/{tenantId}/mailer/identifiers' hints at an API call but lacks operational details.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The two sentences are efficient, but the second sentence could be more informative (e.g., explaining the JSON structure). No wasted words, though it risks under-specification.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter format but lacks details on usage, behavior, and full parameter semantics. For a creation tool in a complex system, more context would be helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Pass the definition as a JSON string' for the 'body' parameter, adding some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain the structure or content of the JSON, and ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter entirely. With 2 parameters and low coverage, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('mailer identifier'), and specifies the HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_mailer_identifier' (read) and 'cdp_update_mailer_identifier' (update), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools like 'cdp_create_mailer_account' or 'cdp_create_mailer_batch' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions the endpoint but doesn't explain prerequisites, when this operation is needed, or what happens after creation. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'cdp_create_mailer_account', 'cdp_create_mailer_batch'), there's no context for choosing among them.

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