create_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an add/mutation operation and requires Umami 3.4+, but does not explain permissions, whether the note appears immediately, default behavior for allDay, or possible failure modes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, object, and version requirement efficiently.

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 create/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits behavioral details, parameter semantics, and any indication of what happens after creation.

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 25%, so the description should compensate but does not. It implies websiteId, date, and note via 'website's charts' and 'dated note,' but never explains allDay or the note constraints, leaving key parameter meaning to the sparse schema.

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 dated note to a website's charts.' The Umami 3.4+ qualifier adds useful scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_annotation or delete_annotation, but the create intent is clear.

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 implies the tool creates an annotation, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_annotations, update_annotation, or delete_annotation. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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