Create a funnel status

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur (e.g., whether duplicate names are allowed). Minimal transparency.

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 concise (two sentences) and includes the HTTP method, endpoint, and tags. It is front-loaded but lacks structure for usage context. Could be improved by adding a short usage note.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response returns, any constraints (e.g., uniqueness of status names), or how this tool fits among many sibling funnel-related tools.

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 0%, but the description does not add any explanation of parameters. It only mentions 'Body: application/json' without describing required fields or the meaning of 'name' or 'funnelId'. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which has no descriptions.

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 HTTP method and endpoint, and confirms that it creates a funnel status. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like weeek_update_a_funnel_status or weeek_get_a_funnel_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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