Create a new agentfabric.dev tenant and receive admin and consumer API keys. No authentication required. Save both keys from the response for later tool calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | ||
| ownerName | No | ||
| ownerEmail | Yes | ||
| tenantName | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is not required and that the response contains two types of API keys that should be saved—useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or failure conditions (e.g., duplicate tenant names), leaving gaps in transparency for a mutating operation.
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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose, followed by a critical usage note about saving keys. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level purpose and the need to save keys, but omits parameter definitions, error scenarios, and details about the response format beyond the presence of keys. An agent would likely struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.
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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. It does not indicate what tenantName, ownerEmail, ownerName, or password mean or how they should be provided, leaving the agent without sufficient information to construct a valid call beyond the schema's basic type constraints.
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 explicitly states the action: 'Create a new agentfabric.dev tenant' and the expected output: 'receive admin and consumer API keys.' This is a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—creating a tenant as an initial step—and notes that no authentication is required, implying it should be called before authentication is available. It also instructs to save the keys for later calls, which acts as a prerequisite for subsequent tools. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so no exclusions are necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose of create_tenant is immediately clear and distinct.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (create_tenant), which is consistent and predictable. There are no other tools to create inconsistency.
A single tool is extremely thin for a server named 'AgentFabric — Human-in-the-Loop Review & Approval'. The tool count does not match the apparent scope, and the sole tool (create_tenant) is peripheral to the stated domain.
The server's purpose implies human-in-the-loop review and approval workflows, but the only available tool creates a tenant. There are no tools for creating, updating, or approving anything, so the surface is severely incomplete.