probely_create_web_target

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains that existing labels are reused and missing ones created automatically, and that allow_duplicate bypasses duplicate URL checks. It also highlights the response structure and correct ID to use. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured with separate paragraphs for key aspects. It uses clear language, includes an IMPORTANT note for post-creation, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers creation behavior, error handling, and response guidance. It lacks details on default values for unused parameters and authentication requirements, but output schema may compensate. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for effective tool usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description alone explains labels, scanning_agent_id, allow_duplicate, and skip_reachability_check meaningfully. It gives examples and usage notes. 'name' and 'url' are self-explanatory, and 'desc' is omitted but optional. Most critical parameters are well-covered.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new target' with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like probely_create_api_target_from_openapi, it distinguishes itself as a web target. It also provides details on labels, scanning_agent_id, and duplicate handling, making purpose crystal clear.

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 clear guidance on when to use parameters: labels for naming, scanning_agent_id for private targets, allow_duplicate for same URL with different configs, and skip_reachability_check for retrying after failure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools (e.g., labels vs create_label tool) or state when not to use it. Still, it provides practical usage context.

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