createService

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 mentions HTTP response codes (201, 401, 422) and content types, which adds some context about error handling and success conditions. However, it doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'service' means in this context, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 moderately structured with a brief purpose statement followed by HTTP response details. However, the response examples are generic placeholders ('key': 'value') that don't add value, and the formatting with markdown and code blocks makes it less concise than it could be. The front-loaded purpose statement is good, but the response details could be more efficiently presented.

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 (1 parameter with nested objects, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers basic purpose and response codes, but lacks crucial context about the 'service' domain, input requirements, and behavioral traits. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still misses important operational context for a creation tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description mentions 'provided data' but provides no details about what data is needed, what a 'service' consists of, or how to structure the input. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 tool's purpose as 'Creates a new service from provided data', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createEnvironment', 'createTeam', or 'createWorkflow', which all follow the same 'create X from provided data' pattern, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 like 'listServices' or other creation tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like 'createEnvironment' or 'createTeam'.

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