Create a scout

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the scout remains inactive until confirmed, the scope is immutable, runs consume credits, and calling twice creates two scouts (explicit non-idempotency matching idempotentHint=false). The confirmation flow and credit cost are exactly the behavioral facts an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loads the action and the activation requirement, and every sentence carries information. The inline apply_to enumeration is dense but readable; a bulleted structure would be marginally clearer, yet nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter, non-idempotent creation tool with a follow-up confirmation step, the description covers the full lifecycle, cost, immutability, and duplicate-call hazard. Return values are covered by the output schema and briefly acknowledged via structuredContent {scout}.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by spelling out the three apply_to modes and the constraint that selected_company_ids must be watched companies. Otherwise it largely mirrors schema text, so it does not warrant a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates a custom scout") plus the side effect that matters ("starts a preview run of its query"), which immediately distinguishes it from heliyos_scouts_update and heliyos_scouts_list. The creation state machine (created but inactive) is articulated in one clause.

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?

Gives a clear explicit workflow: create, poll heliyos_scouts_get until preview completes, then call heliyos_scouts_update with state "confirmed". It also explains which apply_to value applies to which situation. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over siblings such as heliyos_companies_scouts_add for attaching existing scouts.

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