create_log_drain

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear the burden. It describes a mutation (create) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, side effects on existing resources, or auth requirements. The description is brief and lacks behavioral detail.

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 short sentences with front-loaded action. However, the list of sources is incomplete ('firewall' missing), which is a minor inaccuracy. That prevents a perfect score. Overall, it's concise and structured well.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain return values, error scenarios, or the purpose of optional fields (secret, headers, teamId). The agent lacks context to invoke the tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 high (89%), so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by listing possible sources, but it omits 'firewall' from the schema's enum, making it incomplete. It doesn't explain additional parameters like secret, headers, or projectIds 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 the action (create) and the resource (log drain), and mentions key configurable aspects (sources, delivery format). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_log_drain and list_log_drains by focusing on creation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., team context), idempotency, or scenarios where creation might fail. Sibling tools like list_log_drains exist but no usage advice.

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