create_custom_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the create action and references a schema tool. It does not mention what happens on invalid input, whether a created object is returned, how IDs are handled, or any side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the schema-reference guidance follows immediately, making the description efficient and scannable.

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 description is adequate for finding the correct payload shape via get_custom_format_schema, which is the main challenge for this tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits expectations about the response, validation failures, and how the created format is identified or used afterward.

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 schema describes the single parameter as 'Full custom format object' but gives no inner structure. The description adds needed semantics by directing the agent to get_custom_format_schema to build the specifications, compensating for the schema's opacity.

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 the exact action and object: 'Create a custom format.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_custom_format, delete_custom_format, and get_custom_format by naming the create operation on the same resource.

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 instruction to 'Build the specifications from get_custom_format_schema' provides a concrete workflow for correctly constructing the request. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the create-versus-update distinction is clear from the phrasing and sibling names.

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