Create Project Region

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

Discloses it returns 201 and the created object, adding value beyond annotations. However, does not discuss idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. Annotations already indicate it is non-destructive and non-read-only; description supplements with success response but not fully.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, usage hint, and endpoint details. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 2-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers success response and endpoint. It does not address uniqueness constraints, error handling, or optional parameters like 'name'. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 describes both parameters with explanations (company_id as URL param, name as JSON field). Description only reiterates 'Required parameters: company_id', which is already in schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies; description adds minimal new information.

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?

Clearly states it creates a Project Region in a Company, with specific verb and resource. Mentions HTTP 201 and endpoint for clarity. However, there is minor ambiguity with 'Company Settings' phrasing, and it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like delete_project_region or list_project_regions.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Says 'Use this to create a new Company Settings' which is slightly misleading and lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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