create_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one piece of context beyond that — ownership is scoped to the authenticated user ('for the authenticated owner') — but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or failure behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 destructive, open-world create tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot learn from it what fields are required, what the created resource looks like, or how errors are surfaced.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: it never mentions name, status, visibility, or description, nor the allowed enum values (operational/degraded/major_incident, public/private). The enum and maxLength constraints in the schema provide some semantics, but the prose adds nothing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a service') and adds a scope qualifier ('for the authenticated owner'), so an agent knows this is a creation operation scoped to the caller's account. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as update_service or create_changelog_entry, but the verb+resource pair is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than update_service, list_services, or the other create_* siblings, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The only usage signal is the implicit one in 'create'.

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