Create an Evergreen queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect boundaries beyond that: creation is a draft that neither activates nor schedules, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise resolve incorrectly by assuming creation kicks off runs. It does not address authorization, queue limits, or repeated-call 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the negative boundary (does not activate or schedule) is placed immediately after the purpose so the agent cannot misread it. Nothing needs to be moved or cut.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers purpose and the activation boundary but leaves the scheduling behavior (intervalDays, localHour/localMinute, timeZone, scheduleMode, reviewPolicy) and eligibility rules entirely undocumented. Adequate for the core action, short of what the parameter surface demands.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description carries real burden but supplies almost none of it. The phrase 'from an eligible published post' hints that sourcePostId must reference a published post, but the ten undocumented parameters (name, channels, variants, timeZone, expiresAt, localHour/min/intervalDays, reviewPolicy, scheduleMode) get no explanation of scheduling semantics or defaults.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Create a draft Evergreen queue from an eligible published post.' The word 'draft' and 'from an eligible published post' separate it cleanly from update_evergreen_queue, activate_evergreen_queue, preview_evergreen_queue, and create_post without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly states what this tool is not responsible for and routes the agent to the correct sibling: 'Creation does not activate it or schedule anything; activate_evergreen_queue does that separately.' It does not define what makes a post 'eligible' nor say what to do when a queue already exists, so the exclusion is clear but not complete.

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