Create favorites

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact output shape per item including the 'replaced?' flag and per-item error object, the name-collision error behavior (replace default false = error), and the Teamwork reservation requirement. This is the kind of behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and sources, then the mutual-exclusivity rule with its prerequisite, then the output contract. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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 single nested-array parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return format, the error/replace semantics, the prerequisite tool call, and the Teamwork locking caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: exactly one of element / toolDefaults per item. It also clarifies that tool defaults come from set_tool_defaults, linking the parameter to a sibling tool's state.

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 ('Creates'), the resource ('favorites in the Favorites palette'), and the two supported sources (placed element vs tool defaults). This distinguishes it from sibling favorites tools like get_favorites, apply_favorite, and rename_favorite, which manage rather than create.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: each item needs exactly one of element/toolDefaults, and to build from scratch the agent must call set_tool_defaults first; it also flags the Teamwork prerequisite of reserving the 'Favorites' object set. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative sibling (e.g. apply_favorite) or when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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