create_logsource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (a write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive by default). The description adds context by stating it requires write permission and that it creates a LogSource. It doesn't mention the overwrite behavior (which can delete an existing LogSource) but that is disclosed in the schema. The description does not contradict annotations and adds value with the permission requirement and format context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately gives format guidance and the alternative tool. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the input format, the alternative for a different format, and the permission requirement. It doesn't discuss error handling or idempotency, but those are not typically expected in a description and the annotations cover the idempotency hint. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with both parameters having descriptions: definition is 'Full LogSource definition in REST API format' and overwrite is 'If true, delete existing LogSource with same name before creating'. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that the definition format is the same as export_logsource output, which helps agents know how to construct the definition. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a LogSource via REST API from a full definition dict'. It specifies the exact input format (REST API format) and explicitly contrasts with import_logsource, which accepts LM Exchange format. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_logsource or delete_logsource.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states that this tool accepts REST API format (the same as export_logsource output) and directs the agent to use import_logsource for LM Exchange format. It also notes the write permission requirement, which is a prerequisite. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an explicit alternative.

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