create_flag_definition

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

Discloses that missing required title/comment causes API rejection with 400 error. Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but omits other behaviors like idempotency or response structure. The disclosed behavior is useful but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: the first clearly states the main purpose, and the second adds a critical conditional detail. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the key conditional requirement (title/comment) and the structure of the definition parameter. Given no output schema, it assumes the agent can infer the return value. The 6-parameter tool is sufficiently described for correct invocation.

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?

Adds significant value beyond the schema's descriptions: explains that 'definition' must be a JSON string including treatments array and defaultRule, and ties 'title'/'comment' to workspace condition. With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 tool creates/activates a feature flag definition in a specific environment, distinguishing it from siblings like create_feature_flag (which likely creates the flag itself). The verb 'create (activate)' and resource 'feature flag definition' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to include title and comment parameters based on workspace settings, which is a critical conditional requirement. However, it does not compare against alternatives like update_flag_definition for when to use creation vs update.

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