create_api

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

The description discloses the auto-creation of missing groups as a side effect and the return of id and runPath. However, it does not address potential destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing APIs), permissions required, or error conditions. With no annotations, this carries the full burden but is only partially met.

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, consisting of three short clauses in one sentence. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured or elaborate on return values for clarity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides core purpose and return info but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, and edge cases (e.g., duplicate path). It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 67% description coverage (4 of 6 parameters described). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only mentions the return values. It does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (name, description). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb '创建接口' (create API) and the resource, and provides a key side effect '自动建立缺失分组' (auto-create missing groups) and return values. This differentiates it from siblings like create_group.

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 implies use for creating API endpoints and auto-creating groups, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_group or run_api. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information.

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