edgegate_create_eval_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates a draft (unvalidated), requires workspace write access, and clarifies that validation happens elsewhere. This is good transparency, though it doesn't mention return values 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds useful information—purpose, seeding combinations/field details, and validation caveat—with no wasted words.

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 create tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is created, how seeding works, field definitions, validation behavior, and required permission. It lacks return-value details, but that is not critical given no output 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 description coverage is 50% (cases and clone_from have descriptions in the schema). The description adds value by explaining how these parameters combine (clone_from, explicit cases, both, or neither) and enumerates the six case fields, going beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 purpose: 'Create a new behavioral eval set with its first draft version.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edgegate_update_eval_set and edgegate_publish_eval_set by focusing on creation with a draft, making the intent unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Drafts are NOT validated here — only edgegate_publish_eval_set freezes + gates,' providing an explicit alternative and telling the agent when not to expect validation. Also mentions seeding modes (clone_from, cases, both, neither), giving clear usage context.

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