Create resource subscription

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value: it names the underlying reviewed endpoint and states the authorization scope (view_sales for sale, provider authorization for other events) plus the per-call confirmation requirement. It stops short of describing post_url validation or what happens on re-subscription.

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?

Three short declarative sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by scope and confirmation constraints. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description supplies endpoint identity, authorization scope, and the confirmation contract. Given 100% schema coverage, the remaining gaps (failure modes, idempotency on repeat calls) are minor.

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 baseline is 3: the schema already documents resource_name as the exact native event, post_url as the HTTPS callback, account as a private profile label, and confirm as the confirmation flag. The description's scope note ('view_sales for sale event') loosely complements the enum but adds no per-parameter syntax 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create resource subscription') and clarifies it maps to the reviewed native PUT /resource_subscriptions endpoint. It is distinguishable from list_resource_subscriptions and delete_resource_subscription by the 'Create' verb, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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?

Provides important preconditions ('Requires explicit per-call confirmation', scope needs), which implies when the call is legitimate, but never names alternatives or says when to prefer this over the list/delete siblings. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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