Create Macro

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects, permissions required, irreversibility, or what is returned. While annotations indicate a non-read-only operation, the description offers no additional transparency about consequences or prerequisites.

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 HTTP method and action. It includes a concise definition of a macro without any redundant wording. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (5 parameters, create operation) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the macro entity but does not mention what the API returns (e.g., created macro object), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The annotations partially cover the safety profile, but completeness is limited.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by defining a macro as 'a list of actions', which loosely relates to the 'actions' parameter, but it does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Create a new macro' with the specific HTTP method POST and resource '/api/macros'. It partially distinguishes from siblings by defining a macro as a canned response and list of actions, which differentiates from update/delete/list operations.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_macro should be used for modifying existing macros or list_macros for viewing. The description only states the action itself, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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