ruddur_create_waypoint_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false, and openWorldHint true. The description adds the scope requirement (content.manage) and clarifies the resource relationship (note-on-waypoint), which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second states authorization. No redundant or filler content. The description is well-structured and immediately front-loaded with the core action.

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, combined with a strongly self-documenting schema and clear siblings, is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. It lacks an explicit statement of return behavior, but that is often assumed for create operations and no output schema exists.

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 has 100% description coverage: 'body' is thoroughly explained (including how to pass Ruddur fields and when to use assessmentConfig), and 'pathParams' lists parameters. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a note on a Heading Waypoint'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ruddur_list_waypoint_notes, ruddur_update_waypoint_note, and ruddur_delete_waypoint_note. It precisely identifies the action and the target entity.

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 gives clear context: creating a note on a heading waypoint, and states a required scope ('content.manage'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the action is distinct enough among siblings that the usage is implied.

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