create_intent

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful semantics: the commitment is 'soft' and has a TTL, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It omits what happens at TTL expiry and does not surface the mandatory client_request_id replay requirement, keeping it below 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?

Two tight sentences: the core action and its soft-commitment/TTL nature come first, with the disambiguation clause front-loaded immediately after. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

With a rich 100%-covered input schema, an explicit annotation set, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential conceptual framing (soft commitment, TTL, not an order/hold). It is nearly complete, missing only lifecycle details such as expiry behavior or the interaction with the revoke_intent sibling.

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 100%, so every parameter (token, period, family_id, price_ref, client_request_id) is already documented in the schema. The description's 'at its current firm price' loosely reinforces price_ref but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Register a firm buying intent over a product family') with the key qualifier 'at its current firm price' and the semantic nature ('soft commitment with TTL'). The final clause 'Not a GAM order or inventory hold' actively distinguishes it from realistic confusions like check_availability and other order-like siblings.

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?

The 'Not a GAM order or inventory hold' exclusion tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice, which is meaningful routing guidance. It does not, however, explicitly point to a positive alternative (e.g. check_availability for stock, revoke_intent for withdrawal) or state preconditions like needing a family_id from discover_products, so it stops short of a full 5.

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