zadig_build_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral safety. It discloses the dry-run default and the confirmation requirement, which are the most important execution behaviors for an agent to know before calling this tool. However, it stops short of explaining what dry_run actually prevents or what happens when confirm is false.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The most safety-critical information, dry_run default and confirm requirement, is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has six parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, so the extremely short description leaves significant gaps. While an output schema exists, the agent still lacks enough information to correctly construct the required build payload and decide how to use project_key and allow_redacted. This is not fully adequate for a creation tool of this complexity.

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 compensate, but it only adds meaning for dry_run and confirm. The required parameters build_name and build, as well as project_key and allow_redacted, receive no semantic explanation. An agent cannot infer the expected structure of the nested build object from the description or 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create one Zadig build.' This distinguishes it from list, get, update, and delete sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate a build definition from a build template or clarify the exact scope of 'build.'

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 clear invocation context by noting the dry_run default and the requirement to set confirm=true. This is essential for an agent deciding whether a real creation will happen. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool competes directly for the same create action.

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