create_history_failed_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that a POST is made. It does not disclose what side effects creating failed history has, what the id refers to, or what the response implies. No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency either.

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 very short and free of verbosity, and the endpoint plus Args section are clearly structured. However, the opening sentence "Create History." is uninformative and does not earn its place, making the conciseness more a symptom of under-specification than effective economy.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the core semantics of the operation are missing: what "failed history" means, what id must be supplied, and what effect the POST has. An agent could invoke the endpoint but would not understand the business meaning or verify correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only says "id: Path parameter." This tells the parameter's location in the request, not what the id identifies or how it relates to history entries. For a required integer parameter, this is insufficient semantic information.

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 simply says "Create History," which largely restates the tool name without clarifying what "failed" means or what the operation actually accomplishes. The endpoint path /api/v3/history/failed/{id} hints at the domain but is not a human-readable purpose statement. This is closer to tautology than a clear, distinguishing description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_history or other create_* tools. The description provides no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate invocation scenario.

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