Canned Responses: Add a New Canned Response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it specifies the required auth header (`api-access-token`), the exact endpoint path, that extra_body can merge additional fields, and that text/numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic scripts. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a write operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into endpoint, auth, body fields, and a language note. Each line serves a purpose without excessive verbosity. It is appropriately sized for a create tool, though the multi-line format is slightly less concise than a single flowing sentence.

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 non-destructive write tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers auth, endpoint, body fields, and input script handling. It omits any mention of success response shape or error behavior, but with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, these omissions are minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming the body fields (content, short_code), explaining extra_body merging, and adding a non-obvious semantic detail: values may be written in Persian/Arabic and digits may use Persian/Arabic-Indic numerals. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's type and description fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new canned response to the account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like list, update, and remove. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling alternative in the text, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gapify_update_canned_response or gapify_list_canned_responses. It states what the tool does but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent select it over siblings.

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