Create Queue Version

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

The description simply restates the write nature already indicated by annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds nothing about side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or confirmation of creation. Given the annotation, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to provide any additional behavioral context beyond what is already known.

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, clear sentence that conveys the essential action and target. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's straightforward purpose.

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 input schema covers all parameters, annotations indicate a write operation, and an output schema exists, so the basic usage is fully documented. However, the description lacks broader context such as how creating a version interacts with other queue data, whether duplicate names are allowed, or when to use this over other version-related tools. It is minimally adequate but not complete in a holistic sense.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level insight, but the schema does the heavy lifting. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new version in a Yandex Tracker queue'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_get_versions. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's core function.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using queue_get_versions to list existing versions or other mutation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether the queue must exist, or when this operation should be preferred over updating an existing version. The description is silent on usage context.

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