Create a conversion funnel

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond that by explaining the mechanism: reusing a case-insensitive name match prevents duplicates. It also discloses the useful validation behavior of flagging steps without a known tracked page. No contradiction with 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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Each clause adds meaningful behavior: creation, ordering, idempotent retry handling, and validation flagging.

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 three-parameter creation tool with an idempotency annotation, the description covers ordering, retry safety, and a validation behavior. The main omission is the response/error shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates partially by explaining that name matching is case-insensitive and that steps are ordered and checked against tracked pages. However, the step item fields (url and name) and the meaning of projectId are not elaborated beyond the minimal schema note, so compensation is incomplete.

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: 'Create an ordered funnel'. It also adds distinguishing behavior—idempotent case-insensitive name reuse and flagging of untracked steps—so the tool is clearly distinguished from sibling list/analytics/setup tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating funnels and that retries are safe, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_funnels or state when NOT to use it. Routing among siblings is therefore left largely implicit.

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