create_interpretation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that observations are linked to both source_id and interpretation_id, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose mutability, permissions, or side effects. Given the minimal additions, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is brief. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how to query created interpretations. While it mentions linking observations, more context about behavior and limits would improve completeness.

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 17%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'flat entities' for the entities parameter but does not elaborate on structure or constraints of other parameters like interpretation_config or relationships. The description adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 an interpretation row for an existing source from flat entities, and distinguishes it from the 'store' tool by noting when to use store instead. The verb 'create' and resource 'interpretation row' are specific.

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 tells when to use this tool vs the 'store' sibling: 'Use store with an interpretation block when the source-derived extraction can be batched in one store call.' This provides clear when-not and alternative guidance.

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