superset_annotation_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that annotations appear as vertical lines/areas on time-series charts and provides a specific behavioral guideline for point-in-time events (set start_dttm = end_dttm). It does not mention permissions, prerequisites, or return values, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return types.

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 appropriately sized: a one-sentence purpose, a brief context sentence about chart display, and a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding.

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?

The description covers the purpose, all parameter semantics, and important behavioral notes, making it highly informative. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need to be explained. The only gap is the lack of explicit mention of prerequisites like the layer needing to exist, but this is a minor omission given the overall thoroughness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter. It specifies the source for annotation_layer_id, provides ISO format examples for start_dttm and end_dttm, clarifies the optionality of long_descr and json_metadata, and even offers guidance on point-in-time events. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'annotation (timeline event) in the specified layer,' making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like annotation_layer_create by emphasizing 'in the specified layer' and from annotation_update/delete by the create action. The additional context about vertical lines/areas on charts reinforces its specific purpose.

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 clear context on what the tool does and why annotations are used, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use annotation_layer_create or annotation_update instead. Despite this, the purpose is self-evident, and the sibling list offers enough disambiguation.

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