Create DataLens embed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that it returns the embed; it says nothing about permissions, what preconditions exist, or side effects, so it adds little beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, which is good. However the second sentence is grammatically broken ('the key for embedding is one of the workbook the entry lies in') and its referent/parenthetical are hard to parse, costing clarity rather than adding value.

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?

For a non-idempotent create tool with 8 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the workflow for obtaining an embedding secret or how the created embed is used. Annotations plus full schema coverage make it minimally usable, but a richer description would be warranted.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters and nested settings. The description only gestures at the embedding_secret_id constraint ('the key ... is one of the workbook the entry lies in'), and does so in a garbled way that does not clearly add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it embeds an entry and returns the resulting embed, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling datalens_embeds_list/update/delete operations. The phrasing is slightly circular with the tool name, but the resource ('an entry') and the returned artifact are named.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion, but the second sentence points at datalens_embeddingsecrets_list as the source of the required key, giving an implied prerequisite/workflow. An agent can infer usage but receives no guidance on when this should be preferred or avoided.

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