audience_create_geo_polygon

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

Annotations already cover write (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is a single guarded create, that `last` is refused, and that unknowns are not resent, but 'guarded' is undefined and the other terms are cryptic, so the added context is limited.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids padding. However, it is under-specified for a 7-parameter guarded create tool, so brevity veers into obscurity rather than clear conciseness.

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 complex 7-parameter write operation with 5 required fields, 0% schema description coverage, and a confirmation/idempotency guard, the description is severely incomplete. Output schema and annotations reduce the return-value and safety burden, but the agent still lacks enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% across 7 parameters, including required confirmation_hash and idempotency_key. The description explains none of them: it never defines polygons, geo_segment_type, period_length, times_quantity, or what confirmation_hash is for. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'geo-polygon create'. Distinguishes from sibling audience_create_geo_circle and audience_create_pixel through the geo-polygon noun. 'guarded' and 'one' add scope but are not fully clarified.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say when to choose this over audience_create_geo_circle, audience_validate_create, or the audience_manage_prepare/apply flow. The notes about `last` and unknowns are constraints rather than selection guidance.

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