dut_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the central destructive behavior: an existing DUT is replaced only when overwrite=true. However, it does not explain what happens when the DUT already exists and overwrite is false, nor does it mention the pre-overwrite save/checkpoint behavior signaled by allow_without_checkpoint.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second highlights the single most important usage caveat, making it concise and effectively front-loaded.

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?

The definition is reasonably complete for a creation tool: the required path parameter, overwrite semantics, and the risky allow_without_checkpoint parameter are all documented. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified what occurs when the DUT path already exists and overwrite=false, and what exactly the automatic pre-overwrite save entails.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including an example for dut_path and cautionary semantics for overwrite and allow_without_checkpoint. The main description adds little beyond reinforcing that overwrite must be set explicitly to replace, so the baseline score applies.

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 and resource: 'Create a DUT (Device Under Test) object.' This distinguishes it from generic creators like object_create or model_create by naming the specific object type. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the resource 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose dut_create over sibling tools such as object_create or model_create. The only usage hint is about setting overwrite=true, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection context.

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