Create Heartbeat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that the heartbeat interval drives alert triggering, whether the heartbeat is created enabled, whether openWorldHint implies external notification delivery to the target (page/Slack/email), or what happens on repeated calls. For a mutation that will page humans, that is a real 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, so it is not bloated. But it wastes half its length on "from provided data" and leaves no room for the payload structure this nested schema actually needs.

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?

The input is a nested object with six required fields and enum constraints (interval_unit, notification_target_type), plus a boolean whose semantics affect alerting. A single generic sentence is inadequate; the description should at minimum explain the interval/unit pairing and the notification target requirement. Having an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but nothing else.

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 reported at 0% for the single top-level `data` parameter, whose nested `attributes` object carries six required fields including `interval`, `interval_unit`, and `notification_target_id` that have no schema description at all. The description does not compensate — it never names a single field, unit convention, or the relationship between `interval` and `interval_unit`, leaving the most error-prone required fields undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Creates a new heartbeat" states a verb and resource, but "from provided data" is tautological filler that restates the input parameter rather than adding scope. It does not differentiate the tool from update_heartbeat or list_heartbeats beyond the implicit create/update/list verb pattern, so the agent learns nothing it could not infer from the tool name.

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 update_heartbeat, get_heartbeat, or list_heartbeats, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing notification target to reference. An agent must infer the create-vs-update distinction entirely from the naming convention.

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