create_diagnosticsource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, covering the mutation profile. The description adds the permission requirement and the REST API format compatibility, but does not disclose side effects of overwrite or return behavior. Since annotations carry the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and permission; the second provides a format reference and routes to the alternative. Each sentence earns its place.

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 definition parameter is a complex nested object, and the description compensates by pointing to export_diagnosticsource output as the exact expected format. It does not mention return values, but given no output schema and the annotations covering mutation, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description's format note mirrors what the definition schema already states ('Full DiagnosticSource definition in REST API format') and adds only a cross-reference to export_diagnosticsource output. This is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Create') and resource ('DiagnosticSource'), and explicitly differentiates from import_diagnosticsource by format (REST API vs LM Exchange). It also clarifies the required input shape ('full definition dict'), making it easy for an agent to identify the correct tool among many create_* siblings.

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 an explicit routing rule: use import_diagnosticsource for LM Exchange format. It also notes the prerequisite of write permission, which helps the agent determine feasibility. This is clear, actionable guidance that resolves the primary ambiguity.

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