create_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new API', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an API entails in this system, the expected return values, or error conditions. With many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage and integration.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (name, summary, description, workspaceId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints (e.g., name uniqueness). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a new API' states the action and resource, which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what constitutes an API in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_api_version' or 'create_api_schema', leaving ambiguity about the scope of what's being created.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_api_version', 'create_api_schema'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether an API must exist first for other tools, or when this is the appropriate starting point.

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