create_customformat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the POST endpoint and the schema-discovery hint, but it does not contradict the annotations or mislead the agent.

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 well-structured: action, endpoint, then the single argument with a necessary instruction. Every line earns its place, and the key guidance is front-loaded.

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 operation with an opaque body, the description provides the critical missing context by directing the agent to the schema endpoint. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. The only gap is not explaining when to prefer this over related customformat operations, but that is 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 0% and the only parameter, body, is an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed. The description compensates by explicitly telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected fields, which is essential and actionable guidance for an otherwise undocumented payload.

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 ('Create CustomFormat') and includes the POST endpoint, making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling create_* tools, but the resource name is distinctive enough.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_customformat_by_id or delete_customformat_by_id; usage context is only implied by the verb and resource name.

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