create_api_schema

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 states 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented in the schema. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what format the response takes, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with the broader API lifecycle. The description should provide more context about the operation's outcome and behavioral expectations.

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 fully documents all three parameters (apiId, type, files) with their types, enums, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('create') and resource ('schema for an API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_api' (creates the API itself) and 'create_update_schema_file' (updates schema files), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more precise about what a 'schema' entails in this context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing API ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'create_api_schema' vs 'create_update_schema_file' or 'sync_collection_with_schema'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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