create_nrql_condition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', implying mutation, but does not explain authorization needs, idempotency, error behaviors, or what happens to existing conditions with the same name. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word serves to identify the tool's core function.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description provides no context about return values, side effects, or post-creation state. It is too brief given the tool's complexity, leaving the agent without critical information.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, achieving the baseline score.

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 'Create a NRQL alert condition' which clearly identifies the action ('create') and the resource ('NRQL alert condition'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_alert_conditions' or 'update_nrql_condition', though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_nrql_condition), nor does it mention prerequisites such as the existence of the alert policy identified by policy_id.

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