ruddur_create_heading

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation, but the description adds meaningful context: the required scope (content.manage), the mapping from creatorAssessmentConfig to assessmentConfig, and the flexible top-level field passing. It does not disclose return values or side effects.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the first sentence states purpose and the following sentences add actionable details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, nested objects present, and the description leaves the Heading/Waypoint relationship ambiguous. It does not explain return payload, required fields, or how 'import' differs from 'create.' This is a significant gap for a create/import tool with a permissive schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the creatorAssessmentConfig→assessmentConfig mapping and clarifies assessmentConfig usage, which goes slightly beyond the schema. It does not enumerate specific Heading fields beyond what schema's body description 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?

Description states 'Create or import a creator-owned Heading' – a specific verb+resource with ownership scope. However, referencing 'ordinary waypoints' confuses the relationship between Headings and Waypoints, and it does not clearly distinguish this from ruddur_create_waypoint or ruddur_import_headings.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The 'Omit assessmentConfig...' sentence provides conditional configuration advice but not tool selection context. 'Requires scope: content.manage' is a permission requirement, not usage guidance relative to siblings.

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