CreateServiceDefinition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behaviors: an existing definition is replaced (destructive overwrite) and activation happens automatically by default. However, it omits auth/authorization requirements, what happens if activation fails, and whether a failed activation leaves the object inactive or rolls back.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it creates, the package restriction, the activation default), with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Parameters are fully documented by the schema, but this is an unannotated create/replace mutation with no output schema, so the description should say something about the result (success indicator, activation outcome). The package constraint is covered; the response and failure behavior are not.

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 already documents all six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the local-package constraint on 'package' and the auto-activation default, but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb pair ('Create or replace') plus a precise resource ('Service Definition (SRVD)') that cleanly separates it from the CreateCDSView, CreateClass, and CreateBehaviorDefinition siblings. The 'or replace' wording also telegraphs the tool's overwrite semantics rather than just naming an operation.

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 states one hard precondition (only local packages, $TMP/$LOCAL/$-prefixed) which meaningfully narrows when the tool is usable, but there is no guidance on when to choose this versus the read counterpart GetServiceDefinition or versus transport-based flows for non-local packages. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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