create_destination

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral nuances: unrelated fields are ignored, non-email kinds are immediately usable, email kinds start unverified and require a confirmation click before route attachment, and the tool returns the new channel id. These are exactly the side effects and preconditions an agent needs to know.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, field-selection rule, email caveat, and return-value usage. The most important scoping instruction is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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 tool with 11 kind-dependent parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: return value, email verification prerequisite, and how the result connects to set_route. It could have added a brief example or noted potential errors, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance by stating that fields must match the chosen kind and that unrelated fields are ignored, which helps agents avoid sending the wrong fields. It also explains the email-specific confirmation behavior for the address field.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a notification destination') and states what it is for ('monitors can route alerts to'), plus what it returns. It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling tools like update_destination, delete_destination, and list_destinations.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: when creating a new destination, and it differentiates the email flow from non-email flows. It doesn't explicitly say 'use update_destination instead for existing channels,' but the create-focused wording and return-id guidance make the intended use clear enough.

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