cigchat_openai_embeddings_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds the important behavioral detail that the token must have the 'Manage Team' scope, and the POST method signals a write operation. However, it does not disclose return values, side effects, or consequences beyond creation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences that each convey essential information: the action and the auth requirement. No unnecessary words are present, making it efficient, though it may be too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, return value information, and differentiation from sibling operations, leaving an agent to make significant assumptions about how to use it correctly.

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 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the parameters (heading, text, type). The names are self-descriptive to some degree, but 'type' is ambiguous and none of the parameter meanings are clarified, so the description completely fails to compensate for the schema absence.

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 the tool's function as 'Create new embedding' and includes the HTTP endpoint, making the primary action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tools 'generate' or 'import', which could overlap in purpose.

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 alternatives like generate or update. It only mentions a required scope ('Manage Team'), which is a prerequisite but does not explain the appropriate context for invoking this tool.

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