create_feature_set

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

The description discloses useful behaviors beyond the annotation: auto-resolution of display_name, requirement for ticker/source, and return of a conditioning_set_id. However, the destructiveHint: true annotation is not addressed—the description's 'create' framing does not clarify any potential destructive side effects, leaving that behavioral aspect unexplained.

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 three sentences of high density: it states the purpose, the use case vs. alternatives, feature prerequisites, auto-behavior, and return value. No redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the intended downstream use, required inputs, auto-resolution behavior, and return value. With an output schema present, return format details are available elsewhere. The main gap is not reconciling the destructiveHint annotation, but overall the context is sufficient for a create tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that features must include 'ticker' and 'source' with YAHOO/FRED values, and that display_name is auto-resolved if omitted—details not fully captured in the schema's item description.

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 clearly states the tool creates a custom conditioning or target set from catalog features, with a specific downstream use for analyze_quantitative. It distinguishes this from pre-built templates, and the verb+resource construction is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool for building arbitrary factor sets for analyze_quantitative instead of pre-built templates. It outlines required feature fields (ticker, source) and notes the auto-resolution of display_name, providing clear selection context. It does not mention exclusion cases, but the guidance is sufficient.

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