create_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'soft commitment with TTL' and 'current firm price', adding some context beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on TTL duration, what happens after TTL, permission requirements, error conditions, or idempotency behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core action. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy, and it earns its place by clearly stating the purpose and what it is not.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the main intent but omits details about return values, error handling, idempotency via client_request_id, and authentication requirements. More information is needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 the schema already explains each parameter's purpose. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond repeating 'firm price' and 'product family', which are already in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'a firm buying intent over a product family at its current firm price', and distinguishes it from 'GAM order' and 'inventory hold'. It also notes it's a soft commitment with TTL, providing a specific and unique purpose that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 description explicitly states what the tool does and what it does not do ('Not a GAM order or inventory hold'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not directly mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'revoke_intent') or specify when not to use it, missing some explicit guidance.

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