create-training-definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's name and provides no behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, effects of creation, or validation behavior. This is equivalent to the low-scoring 'Process' example in its lack of informational value.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful information beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place by adding any actionable guidance.

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?

The tool's complexity is moderate (creating a definition with a nested arbitrary object), there is no output schema, and no annotations. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what a training definition is, what the request should look like, or what the response will be.

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 has a single parameter 'definition' with 'additionalProperties: {}' and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what a training definition should contain, what fields are required, or how to structure the object. This is a significant gap for an arbitrary object parameter.

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 'Create a new training definition' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (training definition). It is more explicit than a simple tautology and matches the tool name, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create-event or create-policy beyond the resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update-training-definition or start-training. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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