create_customfilter

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive), so the description does not need to restate it. It adds the HTTP method and payload expectation, but does not disclose response behavior, authentication needs, or duplicate-creation semantics; those are not required given the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, endpoint, required parameter, and a discovery instruction. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 an open-schema create operation, the description is sufficient: it provides the endpoint, identifies the required body parameter, and gives a concrete mechanism for discovering valid fields. Return-value details are unnecessary because an output schema exists; it could be slightly stronger by naming the exact matching GET tool.

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 only defines body as an open object with no field-level documentation, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by identifying body as the request payload and, more importantly, directing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected 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?

States the action 'Create' and target resource 'CustomFilter' and reinforces it with the explicit endpoint POST /api/v1/customfilter. This clearly distinguishes the tool from update_customfilter_by_id, delete_customfilter_by_id, and list_customfilter.

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 makes the use case clear by saying 'Create', and it gives a concrete prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before composing the body. It does not explicitly say to use update_customfilter_by_id for existing filters, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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