Api ebios rm operating modes create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of what body data is required, what permissions are needed, whether concurrent creates are safe, or what happens on success. It does not contradict the annotations, but contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

It is technically one token, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded purpose sentence, no structure, and nothing an agent can 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?

For a create/mutation endpoint with an empty schema, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what to send, what the side effects are, or how it differs from siblings.

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% and the single parameter is a free-form 'body' object with additionalProperties=true and a null default. The description provides no information about the shape, required fields, or semantics of that body, leaving the agent with no way to construct a valid payload.

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 is just the tool's slug restated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_operating_modes_create'), which merely echoes the name and title. It implies a create operation on an EBIOS RM operating-modes resource, but provides no verb+resource statement an agent could act on beyond the identifier itself.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g. operating_modes_list, operating_modes_update, operating_modes_partial_update, operating_modes_retrieve). Nothing indicates prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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