create_funnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers key behaviors: exit_page must be last, scope defaults to 'visitor', duplicates are refused, and the result is read via funnel_report. This goes well beyond a bare 'create' statement, though it does not discuss permissions or undo behavior.

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 concise sentences carry a lot of useful information without filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and constraints, making the description efficient and scannable.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: step shape, constraints, duplicate behavior, and follow-up reporting are all covered. The only notable omission is prose guidance on strict_order, but the schema already documents that parameter adequately.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates by explaining the steps parameter in detail with valid examples, the exit_page ordering rule, and the scope values/default. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though name and site are left to the schema or are self-evident.

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 opens with 'Add a funnel' and immediately defines the resource as an ordered list of 2+ steps. It provides concrete step examples, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from related tools like update_funnel and funnel_report.

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?

It clearly orients the agent toward creating a new funnel and says to read results with funnel_report, which is useful routing guidance. It also warns that duplicate names are refused, implying the agent should avoid re-creating existing funnels. However, it does not explicitly call out update_funnel as the alternative for modifying an existing funnel.

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