Record an audience seen on screen

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the observation is persisted on the latest snapshot, labeled "seen-on-screen," and stamped with today's date. It leaves repeat-call behavior and the outcome when no snapshot exists unspecified.

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?

Two compact sentences cover purpose, source, and persistence without filler. The API-gap context is front-loaded, followed by the concrete recording action and storage behavior.

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?

Together with the schema and annotations, the description supports the common invocation, but important behavior remains unclear for a write tool with no output schema. In particular, mode semantics and defaults, snapshot prerequisites, repeat-write behavior, and the returned result are not explained.

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?

The schema already documents platform, item, segment, and workspace, while the description mainly restates the campaign/journey and segment/list relationship and adds their dashboard provenance. It does not compensate for the undocumented mode parameter by explaining include versus exclude behavior or its default.

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 gives a concrete operation: recording which segment or list a campaign or journey targets, with dashboard observation as the source. It is clear and distinct in scope, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool.

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?

"Fill an API gap" and "as read from the platform's dashboard" establish a clear use case: preserving manually observed audience data that the API does not expose. It does not state when not to use the tool, name an alternative, or explain prerequisites such as the existence of a latest snapshot.

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