komodo_create_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare mutation. It does not say whether creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicting names, what permissions are needed, or what side effects (registration, health checks) occur.

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?

Short and front-loaded, which is good, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' boilerplate lines carry essentially no information. The 'Returns' line is especially redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explaining, yet the description still spends a line on it while leaving the nested config object completely undocumented. For a required, free-form object parameter, this is a major gap.

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% and the single parameter is a nested, open-ended object (additionalProperties: true). The description only restates the schema as 'Server configuration dictionary', giving no key names, no examples, and no required vs optional distinction — an agent has no way to construct a valid config.

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 new server'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read (komodo_get_server / komodo_list_servers) and mutation tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from komodo_create_deployment/build/stack beyond the resource noun, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus komodo_update_server, komodo_delete_server, or the create/update variants for other resources. No prerequisites, auth requirements, or conditions are given.

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