metrika_logs_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those: the export consumes the 10 GB per-counter quota, requires an env flag, requires user confirmation, and is idempotent by key. What's missing is any note on quota exhaustion consequences or failure behavior.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the cost and prerequisite before the workflow pointer. No sentence is wasted, and the density suits a tool whose surrounding steps matter as much as the call itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the essential operational facts (quota, env flag, prerequisite evaluation, follow-up poll). The remaining gap is parameter guidance, which is thin for a 7-parameter write with no schema descriptions.

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 (5 required), so the description must carry the burden. It only hints at `idempotency_key` via 'Idempotent by key' and leaves date1, date2, source, fields, counter_id, and attribution completely unexplained, including format expectations for the date range and source.

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 (Create) and resource (Metrika Logs API export), which cleanly separates it from sibling readers like metrika_logs_list and metrika_logs_get. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: run `metrika_logs_evaluate` and confirm with the user first, then poll `metrika_logs_get` afterwards. It also names the enabling condition (YANDEX_METRIKA_LOGS_ENABLED). When-to-use and surrounding steps are fully specified.

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