cdp_create_prediction

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 it's a creation tool (implying mutation) and mentions the HTTP method (POST), which is helpful. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It's efficient with zero wasted words. The inclusion of the API endpoint in parentheses is slightly technical but not excessive. It could be slightly improved by integrating the endpoint info more seamlessly, but it's overall well-structured.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden. However, for a creation tool, it should better explain parameters and behavioral context. It meets a baseline but has clear gaps.

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 full definition as a JSON string', which clarifies the 'body' parameter's purpose and format. However, it doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter (optional, default null) or provide examples of the JSON structure. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 a new prediction definition') and resource ('prediction definition'), which is specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_clone_prediction' or 'cdp_update_prediction' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools (e.g., 'cdp_create_campaign'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a tenant ID), when not to use it (e.g., for updates), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_clone_prediction' or 'cdp_update_prediction'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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