Api perimeters 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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what is created, what permissions are needed, whether the body is required, or what happens on conflicting/duplicate perimeters.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted clauses, and it is front-loaded. But brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy.

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?

A write endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations explaining required payload contents. The description gives an agent nothing to construct a valid create call.

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?

One parameter (body) with 0% schema description coverage and a bare anyOf object, and the description explains nothing about its expected shape or fields. This is exactly the case where the description must compensate for the schema and it does not.

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 says the endpoint lets perimeters be "viewed or edited", but the tool is a create endpoint named perimeters_create; creation is never mentioned. It also fails to differentiate from the many sibling perimeter tools (list, retrieve, update, partial_update), so it reads as generic DRF boilerplate.

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 on when to use this versus perimeters_list, perimeters_retrieve, perimeters_update or perimeters_partial_update. The only usage hint given ("viewed or edited") actually points an agent away from the create operation it performs.

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