Create Service

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

Describes creation behavior ('Returns the created service with its id'), details deploy type nuances (e.g., 'worker: long-running background process with no inbound network — no port, no URL, no health check'), and notes server-side forced runtime for static. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent; description adds significant 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?

Every sentence serves a purpose. It starts with the main action, then lists key constraints, followed by deploy type details and an important exclusion. Despite covering 16 parameters, it remains under 100 words and avoids redundancy.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers: required inputs, source constraint, ID sources, deploy type semantics, env var handling, and return value. It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping concepts: 'Requires exactly one source (repository URL or registry URL)', clarifying deploy type behavior, and noting that secrets are managed externally. This offsets some schema verbosity, earning a 4.

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 starts with 'Create a new service in a project.', a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_project or deploy_service by detailing the required components (source, pod, region). The scope and output are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Requires exactly one source (repository URL or registry URL)' and instructs to get IDs from list_projects, list_pods, list_regions. It provides a clear exclusion: 'Environment variables are NOT set here — manage them with the partiri CLI (see use_partiri_cli).' This perfectly guides when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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