post_insight_result

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior; the description adds upsert semantics and clarifies that resource results are handled elsewhere. Yet it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency guarantees, or limits, which is important for a destructive tool.

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 three sentences with clear hierarchy: high-level purpose, upsert behavior, scope clarification. No unnecessary words and well-structured.

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?

Despite high complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description omits the return value/response format, doesn't mention optional parameters like 'status' or 'dismissalDetails', and lacks guidance on required fields beyond the schema.

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 high (86%), with detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it creates or updates a single insight, and differentiates from the resource-results endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'post_insight_results' (plural) or 'update_insight_status', making the purpose clear but not fully differentiated from close siblings.

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 explains when it updates vs creates (based on key existence) and separates resource results. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'post_insight_results' for batch operations or 'update_insight_status' for status changes, leaving gaps in usage context.

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