ldap_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' with no details about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether this activates the provider immediately. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters (7 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., provider ID), mention prerequisites like existing configuration, or address edge cases such as duplicate providers. The minimal description leaves too much unstated for a complex creation tool.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, but it also doesn't need to since the schema is fully documented.

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 'Create LDAP authentication provider' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (LDAP authentication provider), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ldap_login (which performs authentication) and ldap_ping (which tests connectivity).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as provider_enable or provider_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from related provider management tools.

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