create_funnel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It exposes concrete implementation details: millisecond timestamps, mandatory 'timestamp' in update, omitting step 'id' to let SigNoz generate UUID, automatic cleanup of empty funnels on failure, and the caveat that 'p50' silently yields p99. This is far beyond what a typical tool description provides.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is well-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and an example. Every sentence adds value—explaining undocumented requirements, defaults, and edge cases. There is no fluff, and the structure allows an agent to quickly locate parameter details and behavioral notes.

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?

The tool is complex (wrapping two REST calls, with tricky requirements), yet the description covers all significant aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, error handling, and limitations. The presence of an output schema is not necessary because the description already outlines what is returned (funnel_id, steps, warnings). It leaves no major gaps for an agent to fill.

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 is minimal (name and steps, with steps as a generic array of objects). The description compensates fully by specifying each required and optional field inside a step (service, span, name, latency_type, has_errors), defaults, examples, and the meaning of 'latency_type' with the p50 caveat. It also gives a concrete example of the steps array, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Create a SigNoz trace funnel and set its steps in a single call.' It names the specific resource (SigNoz trace funnel) and the verb (create/set), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_funnels, delete_funnel, and analytics tools. No ambiguity.

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 explains the tool's scope by noting it wraps two REST calls and handles undocumented requirements, which implies this is the recommended way to create funnels. It also gives a key limitation: 'All steps must occur within the same trace' and that funnels cannot see loops/retries. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or say 'use this when X'—though siblings are clearly different operations, so the guidance is adequate.

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