Create an evaluation test set (CSV for import)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 100-case cap, the write-a-file-to-disk nature, and the crucial non-obvious constraint that the API cannot create test sets directly (portal import required). It omits overwrite behavior and any permission/error semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format. No filler, though the suggestFromWorkspace sentence could be clarified slightly more crisply.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (generate file, import once, automate runs afterwards). The remaining gaps (undefined maxSuggested, overwrite behavior) are minor but real.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains suggestFromWorkspace (derives cases from topics, starters and knowledge) and ties the max-100 limit to the cases list, but maxSuggested has neither schema nor description coverage, and cases/outputPath details rest on 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?

States a specific verb (write) and resource (the CSV the portal's Evaluation page imports), and pins the artifact format (columns Question, Expected response) and size limit (max 100 cases). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling evaluation tools by being a file generator rather than an API operation.

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?

Explains the key workflow context: test sets cannot be created via the API, so the file is imported once in the portal, after which runs are automated via cs_run_evaluation. This routes the agent well, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with cs_test_set_from_transcripts, the other likely test-set generator sibling.

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