create_config

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'At least one setting is required, new configs become active immediately once referenced by a key or prompt, and the call returns the new id and version_id.' This adds activation semantics and return value details, giving the agent clear expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause earns its place. The structure is efficient with no redundancy or filler.

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 8-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema (so return values are already documented), the description covers all necessary contextual aspects: what it does, when to use it, key behavioral rules, and activation implications. Nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a non-obvious constraint ('At least one setting is required') not enforced by the schema (which only requires name), and mentions return fields (id, version_id), providing extra semantic context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a config that defines routing, cache, retry, and targets for requests.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (config), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing update_config and list_config_versions as alternatives.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'use update_config to modify an existing one and list_config_versions for history.' This tells the agent when to use create_config versus related tools, and also implies it is for new configs only.

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