Create Pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that: it says nothing about retry semantics for a non-idempotent create, required permissions, side effects such as attaching services/environments, or validation failures.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the operation front-loaded, so it is not padded. However, brevity here comes from omission rather than efficiency, leaving only a tautological restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is essential: what a pulse represents, the required shape of the nested payload, and any prerequisites or side effects for a non-idempotent, open-world create.

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 as 0% at the top level, and the single `data` parameter is a deeply nested JSON:API-style envelope (type/attributes with summary, refs, labels, timestamps, service_ids, environment_ids) whose purpose the description never explains. The phrase "provided data" is circular and leaves the agent to reverse-engineer the envelope from nested field descriptions alone.

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 pulse" gives a clear verb and resource, but "pulse" is an undefined domain concept and "from provided data" adds nothing. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as list_pulses, get_pulse, or update_pulse beyond the implied write verb.

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 create a pulse versus using another tool, no preconditions (e.g., whether an incident or service must already exist), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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