Create evaluation

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

Annotations only declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent; the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the create-then-targets-then-enable lifecycle, strict rubric validation that returns 400 invalid_request with offending paths in error.details.fields, and the confirmation/credit-spend caution. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then validation and safety notes. Three short blocks, each carrying distinct information, though the validation sentence is dense and the endpoint paths overlap with what a schema-aware agent already knows.

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 destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle, prerequisites, failure modes, and confirmation expectations, and implies an evaluation_id is produced. It stops short of describing what the response returns or the semantics of the config rubric versus update paths, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and there are only two top-level params, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that 'explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation' (the confirm flag) and that the operation is account-scoped. It adds meaning but not per-field syntax detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates an organization evaluation') and immediately situates it in the lifecycle, pointing to the PUT targets and PATCH enable endpoints that correspond to sibling tools (set_organization_evaluation_targets, update_organization_evaluation). An agent can separate creation from update/enable/delete without opening schemas.

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?

Gives real conditional guidance: a new evaluation has no targets, so it cannot be enabled until targets are set and then patched. It also states explicit confirmation is required and warns against auto-resubmitting unknown outcomes. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives for listing/updating evaluations, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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