create_api_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., if it affects existing versions), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded, immediately conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'API version' entails in this system, what happens after creation, or provide any context about the creation process. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and sibling tool inference, which is insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'schemas' and 'collections' relate to the new version), provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema documentation, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to add meaningful semantic context.

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 ('new version of an API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_api' (which creates an API itself) and 'update_api_version' (which modifies an existing version). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes an 'API version' in this context, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the created resource.

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), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar operations like 'fork_collection' or 'update_api_version'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter requirements.

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