create_ranking_formula

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the confirmed flag, failing to address side effects (e.g., immediate activation, permissions needed, rollback possibility), rate limits, or any other behavioral context. This is critically insufficient for a creation tool.

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 very short (one sentence plus a requirement), which could be seen as concise, but it is too sparse to be functional. For a tool with 7 parameters, it lacks essential details. It is front-loaded with the main action but fails to convey necessary information.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a ranking formula does, how formula types differ, what the confirmed flag actually controls, or any interaction with other decisioning tools. This leaves an AI agent without critical context.

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 14% (only name and formula_type have descriptions). The description adds no explanation for parameters like custom_pql, custom_field_name, description, or access_token. It does not clarify the meaning of formula_type enum values or how they relate to the other parameters.

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 states 'Create a ranking formula for Experience Decisioning', clearly identifying the action (create) and resource (ranking formula) within a specific domain. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_eligibility_rule, but the context provided by the domain name helps distinguish it.

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 mentions 'Requires confirmed: true to execute', which provides a basic condition but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explanation of formula types or their appropriate use cases.

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