create_topic

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

The description discloses that the operation fails under resource constraints and returns the full topic name. It does not explicitly state that it creates persistent state, but that is strongly implied by 'Create' and the annotations (readOnlyHint: false). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, covering all essential aspects in four sentences without redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value: action, naming, fixed settings, failure conditions, and return 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?

It provides a complete picture: what the tool does, how naming works, fixed resource characteristics, failure scenarios, and what it returns. It also points to related tools for limits, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only parameter, 'label', is fully described: it is optional, becomes a readable suffix, is sanitized, and if omitted, a random name is generated. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's basic constraint 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Create a Kafka topic for the user.' It also explains the naming behavior (namespace prefix, optional label, random fallback), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

It provides practical guidance by noting failure conditions (exceeding topic count or storage budget) and directs users to get_kafka and get_account for limits. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, it gives enough context for when to use it.

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