create_build

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication needs (JWT token), dynamic fetching of platforms/architectures, automatic EPEL handling, and the behavior of independent_tasks and skip_tests. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a mutating operation, but 'create' implies it. It also doesn't describe side effects or reversibility, but that's not critical for a create action. Overall it's quite transparent.

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 lengthy but every sentence provides necessary information given the 22 parameters. It is structured with an intro on EPEL and an 'Args:' section with clear bullet-like formatting. It front-loads the purpose and then systematically covers each parameter. Not a single sentence is fluff, so it earns its length. Slightly less concise than ideal due to volume, but that's warranted.

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 high complexity (22 params, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers parameter semantics, constraints, special cases (EPEL, from_tag/from_srpm), and references get_platforms for available options. It also notes the output schema exists (though not shown), so return values don't need explanation. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed meanings for all 22 parameters, including constraints (e.g., at least one of packages/git_urls, cannot combine git_urls with from_srpm), format examples (e.g., 'pkg_name tag_name' for from_tag), and special behaviors (add_epel_dist extracts dist suffix). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 states 'Create a new build on ALBS' which is a specific verb (create) and resource (build on ALBS). It also notes the JWT token requirement. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_release_plan, but the action is distinct and unambiguous. One point off because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it's not, but the purpose is clear.

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 context for when to use certain parameters (e.g., EPEL builds auto-apply flavors, from_tag vs from_srpm, uses get_platforms for available options). It explains constraints like 'Cannot be used with from_srpm' and 'At least one must be provided'. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X' but the context is clear for a create operation with no direct alternative.

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