Recurring Create Recurring Stream

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the description need not repeat basic write semantics. 'This may create or update Monarch data' adds a slight hint of upsert-like behavior without specifying what data is affected, whether existing streams can be modified, or what side effects could occur. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is extremely short, but under-specification is not conciseness. The first sentence restates the tool title, and the second sentence is a vague side-effect note. There is no structure, no parameter overview, and no guidance, so despite the lack of fluff, the content is not adequate.

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 write tool with 7 parameters, 4 required fields, no output schema, and only minimal annotation coverage, this description is far too thin. It omits return behavior, parameter semantics, prerequisites, and when to choose create versus update. An agent receiving only this description could not confidently construct a valid call or interpret the result.

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 29%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The four required parameters (merchant_id, frequency, amount, base_date) are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the prose, so an agent cannot reason about their formats, constraints, or relationships.

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 and resource: 'Create recurring stream.' This clearly identifies the core action and differentiates it from read/list/delete recurring tools by name. However, it does not distinguish it from recurring_update_recurring_stream, and the phrase 'This may create or update Monarch data' slightly muddies whether the operation is strictly a create or an upsert.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling recurring_update_recurring_stream or recurring_remove_recurring_stream. An agent gets no criteria to decide between creating a new recurring stream and updating an existing one, and no context about required prior steps or constraints.

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