create_volume

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description details behavioral traits: named volumes persist, anonymous volumes accumulate unless pruned, and driver options for NFS or bind mounts. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by behavioral details, driver options, and a param list. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and it remains organized.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, persistence, driver options, and return type. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon running) but is otherwise complete for a creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (name, driver, driver_opts, labels) with examples, especially for driver_opts. This adds significant meaning 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 'Create a volume managed by Docker' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes between named and anonymous volumes, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 on when to use named vs anonymous volumes (e.g., for databases, uploads) and explains persistence behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like run_container that also create volumes implicitly.

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