yougile_create_string_sticker_state

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context—such as whether states must be unique, whether the sticker must exist, or what the API returns. Since the annotations carry the baseline safety profile, the lack of additional disclosure is a gap.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core action and object clearly, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 simple create operation, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and the schema covers the parameters. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values, uniqueness rules, or behavioral side effects, the description leaves some contextual gaps that a more complete description would address.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (name, color, stickerId), with 100% coverage. The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a state (option) for a string sticker.' The parenthetical clarifies that a 'state' is an 'option,' making the intention unambiguous. While it distinguishes itself from the sibling create_string_sticker (which creates the sticker itself), it does not explicitly reference alternative tools.

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 purpose implies the usage context: you would use this tool when you need to add a new state/option to an existing string sticker. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the related update_string_sticker_state or create_string_sticker, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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