create_destination

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: it's a write operation, requires a pre-existing group, and includes a nuanced caveat about obtaining certificate details. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with an important warning and uses clear formatting with '> IMPORTANT' sections. While somewhat verbose, each sentence serves a purpose (warning, prerequisite, certificate tip). It is well-structured for a complex creation tool.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key contextual needs: prerequisites (create group first), the critical warning, and a specific use-case nuance. It could be more complete on error scenarios or return format, but it sufficiently informs correct tool invocation.

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% and both parameters (schema_file, request_body) are described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond instructing the agent to consult the schema file and confirming the path. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 creates a new destination within a specified group in Fivetran, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like modify_destination or delete_destination by including mapping details and prerequisites.

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?

Explicitly warns it's a write operation requiring user confirmation, explains the 1:1 group-destination mapping prerequisite, and provides a specific tip about the trust_certificates parameter with a link for further details. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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