Create zone helper

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

With annotations already covering safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: it discloses the underlying WS call (zone/create), the persistence constraint that only zones created this way can be updated/deleted later, the return shape (status, name, raw WS result), and error behavior (returns an error dict instead of raising). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and distinction, then flows into behavioral details, usage guidance, return values, and error handling in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful information without waste.

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 a create mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage context, behavioral constraints, return format (though output schema exists, the description still clarifies), and error handling. No critical gaps remain for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself fully documents all six parameters with examples and defaults. The description only alludes to 'given coordinates and radius', adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Create) and resource (zone), and explicitly distinguishes it from YAML zones and from the update/delete siblings by noting that only zones created this way can later be changed through zones_update_zone or zones_delete_zone. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance ('Use when: adding a new geofence zone without editing configuration.yaml') and clear exclusions ('zone.home (core config) and YAML-defined zones live outside this storage collection and cannot be created here'). The alternative approach (editing configuration.yaml) is named, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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