ruddur_create_waypoint

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the scope requirement, the creatorAssessmentConfig→assessmentConfig mapping, and the flexible body handling (top-level fields or wrapped). It doesn't describe return/error behavior, but the additions go beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, assessmentConfig condition, and server mapping plus scope. No redundancy or filler.

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 create tool with a complex body and no output schema, the description covers the core action, special-case behavior, permission requirement, and body conventions. It omits response/return details, but that isn't explicitly required here; a brief note on return value would have pushed it to a 5.

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% and both 'body' and 'query' have thorough descriptions. The tool description only mentions assessmentConfig, which is already covered in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a creator-owned Waypoint.' It differentiates from sibling create tools (create_heading, create_heading_snapshot) by targeting Waypoint specifically, and 'creator-owned' adds useful specificity.

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?

Provides conditional guidance: omit assessmentConfig for ordinary waypoints, include it only for assessment-style. Also notes the server's mapping of creatorAssessmentConfig and the content.manage scope requirement. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the create action and resource type make when-to-use clear.

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