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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create an AB activity,' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 required params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It lacks context on behavior, return values, or expected usage patterns.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('AB activity') in Adobe Target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_activity or list_activities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_activity for modifications) or any prerequisites, such as requiring a workspace or property IDs.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it supports both AB and XT types and that auth credentials are auto-loaded. This adds value beyond the schema. As a read operation, no destructive effects are expected, and the description is consistent with read-only 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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second provides auth context. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return value or response structure. For a simple retrieval tool this may be adequate, but it lacks completeness regarding what the agent can expect to receive. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, a score of 3 reflects this gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool supports both activity types (AB and XT), which aligns with the schema enum but reinforces meaning. It also implies the activityId parameter by stating 'by ID'. The schema already describes each parameter adequately; the description provides marginal added clarity.

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 'Get an Adobe Target activity by ID' and specifies it supports both AB and XT activity types. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities (list) or create_ab_activity (create).

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 description mentions automatic loading of API key and tenant from environment variables, providing context for setup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it) or compare to siblings like list_activities. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive. It also fails to mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides, or the format of the returned data. Score 2 because it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implicit listing action.

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 description consists of two short sentences: one for the core purpose and one for credential setup. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a defined role, earning a top score.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks an overview of the tool's behavior (e.g., it returns a list of activities matching optional filters) and does not describe the output format. For a list tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context. Score 2 because it is minimal and misses key contextual elements.

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%, and the description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. The mention of automatic credential loading is not parameter-specific. Baseline score 3 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 'List activities from Adobe Target,' specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'activities.' It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_activity_by_id or create_ab_activity, but the purpose is evident. Score 4 because it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 description mentions automatic loading of API key and tenant from environment variables, providing some context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_activity_by_id for a single activity, create_ab_activity for creation), nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. Score 2 due to minimal usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and lists important behaviors such as deep-cloning, orphan pruning, deduplication, and support for activity types. However, it does not cover permissions, failure modes, or idempotency, leaving some gaps.

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 description is reasonably concise at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action before listing handling details. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted list for behaviors) but is still clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the main behaviors (cloning, deduplication, type support) necessary for agent invocation. However, it omits details on error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the experience is not found, which would enhance completeness.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that experienceName is matched case-insensitively and that activityType supports 'ab' and 'xt', which complements the schema. It also mentions automatic env variable loading for API key/tenant, which are not parameters but helpful context.

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 updates an Adobe Target activity by injecting new HTML/JS code into a named experience, which is a specific and distinct action from sibling tools like update_activity_name or update_activity_selector.

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 description implies usage for code injection into AB or XT activities but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. No direct exclusions or recommendations are provided, relying on the user to infer from the list of siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that API key and tenant are loaded from env vars automatically, which is useful authentication context. It does not detail side effects or reversibility, but for a simple rename, this is reasonable.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with good schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and authentication. It lacks return value details, but that is not mandated given the lack of output schema. Overall adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'the name of an activity in Adobe Target'. It is specific and immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like update_activity (which likely updates other fields) and update_activity_selector.

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 description implies when to use (to rename an activity) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or differentiate from alternatives like update_activity. The mention of environment variables is helpful but does not address usage context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses one error case (returns available names if location not found), supports both AB and XT, and mentions env vars. Missing details on success response, permissions, destructive nature, or idempotency.

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 covering purpose, usage, edge case, environment, and type support. Concise without being terse; each sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, an error behavior, and environment setup. Missing success response details but otherwise complete enough for an agent.

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% and parameter descriptions are thorough. The description adds context about when to use the tool but doesn't enrich individual parameter meanings beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 updates location selectors in an Adobe Target activity, with an example use case (when primary selector doesn't match intended target). It differentiates from siblings like update_activity_name but doesn't explicitly contrast with update_activity, so not a 5.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use this when the activity's primary location selector does not match...'). Does not give when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient. The mention of automatic environment loading is helpful setup info.

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