Provision Test Tenant

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

Annotations already declare mutability, open-world behavior, and non-idempotency. The description adds meaningful context: it is an admin/public endpoint, it returns the provisioned tenant, minted api_key, and base_url, and the isolated upstream API key is encrypted at rest.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a structured args list. The list partly duplicates schema descriptions, but it remains appropriately sized for a 12-parameter provisioning tool and adds default values.

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 complex admin provisioning tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: sandbox tenant creation, admin/public endpoint requirement, all parameters with defaults, credential encryption, and return values. It could additionally clarify test-tenant lifecycle or alternatives, but is otherwise complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating defaults not fully captured in the schema, including customer_type 'individual', limit_daily_brl 1000000, and limit_monthly_brl 30000000 cents, and by grouping the optional blindpay credentials.

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 a specific verb and resource: create a sandbox tenant with a fresh X-Ashar-Tenant-Key. It also distinguishes this as an ADMIN provisioning operation, which separates it from credential-management and listing siblings.

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 usage by saying it creates a sandbox tenant, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings such as ashar_list_test_tenants or credential rotation tools. The admin-operation note is useful context but not a selection guideline.

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