create_coaching_style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required `coaching:write` scope and the Premium/Enterprise plan gate, both of which gate whether the call is viable. It still doesn't say what happens on a name collision or what the response contains.

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 short sentences with the action first and the prerequisite second. No filler or repetition; every statement carries information.

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 six-parameter write tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any explanation of the inputs or what a successful creation returns. Only the scope and plan gate are covered; parameter meaning and failure modes are absent.

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% across six parameters, including two required ones (name, personalityPrompt), so the schema provides no meaning at all. The description offers nothing about any parameter — not what personalityPrompt should contain, nor how objectionStyle, toneDescriptor, or closingPhilosophy differ. Only the phrase 'coaching style' hints at the parameter domain.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a custom coaching style') that is unambiguously distinct from the siblings list_coaching_styles and update_coaching_style. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings or clarify what makes one style differ from another, but the action 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?

Adds entitlement and permission prerequisites ('Premium/Enterprise', scope `coaching:write`), which tell the agent whether the call can succeed. However, it gives no guidance on when to create a new style versus updating an existing one via update_coaching_style, and no behavior for duplicates.

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