Create Redis instance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, marking this as a mutation. The description adds only the endpoint call 'POST /redis' and the deprecation reason. It does not explain behavior such as synchronous vs asynchronous creation, resource provisioning details, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the deprecation notice. However, it repeats 'Create Redis instance' and could be more structured (e.g., separating deprecation from action). Still efficient for the agent.

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 tool with 8 parameters (including required ownerId and plan) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention required parameters, default values, or the relationship to the Key Value API beyond naming it. The agent would need to inspect the schema independently for essential context.

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 63%, falling in a moderate range. The description provides no parameter-level details or context. The schema itself describes some parameters (name, ownerId, region, persistenceMode, maxmemoryPolicy) but the description adds no additional meaning. A score of 3 is appropriate as a baseline given the coverage.

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 the tool creates a Redis instance, and explicitly calls out its deprecation and the alternative Key Value API. It distinguishes itself from siblings like render_create_key_value by marking itself as deprecated and directing users to the replacement.

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 explicitly states the tool is deprecated and recommends using the Key Value API instead, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This effectively tells the agent to avoid this tool in favor of the alternative.

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