Create overlay

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the endpoint is undocumented and 'may change without notice', a stability warning an agent cannot derive from structured fields. It stops short of describing permissions, side effects, or return content.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the hazard caveat, then the copy workflow. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 create tool with a fully documented 4-param schema and meaningful annotations, the description covers purpose, a stability caveat, and a copy path. The one gap is return behavior: with no output schema, the description never says what a created overlay returns (e.g. an id needed for later calls), which would help sequencing.

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 nonetheless adds real meaning by telling the agent that the widgets argument should be sourced from overlays_get, which the schema does not explain. 'Empty by default' largely restates the schema's widgets/settings defaults, limiting it to a modest above-baseline gain.

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 ('Create a new overlay on the channel') plus a distinguishing default ('empty by default'), which separates it from overlays_get/overlays_update/overlays_list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 one concrete usage tip ('To copy an overlay, pass the widgets from overlays_get') but offers no general when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing relative to overlays_update or overlays_list. Usage is implied rather than systematically guided.

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