Create CDN troubleshoot

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description reinforces the write nature with '[WRITE]' and adds important behavioral context that body fields are undocumented, so the agent should send an empty object unless fields are verified.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: the write nature, action, endpoint, and body caveat are all stated without filler. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 write tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, endpoint, required domain path, and undocumented body behavior. It could be slightly richer by noting how to retrieve the resulting troubleshoot, but that is partly covered by sibling tools.

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 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying that the official endpoint takes the domain in the path and that the optional body is effectively unknown beyond an empty object. This adds meaningful constraint beyond the schema's generic body description.

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 ('Start a new troubleshoot for a domain') and gives the official endpoint. It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling read operations like list_troubleshoots and get_latest_troubleshoot.

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 it by saying it starts a new troubleshoot, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it. The body guidance ('send empty object unless you have verified fields') is useful invocation guidance 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.