gorelo_create_uptime_check

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that checks run on a schedule and support ICMP, HTTP, and TCP targets, but it does not discuss side effects such as AdoptClientAssets or permission requirements.

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?

It is a single well-formed sentence with the core operation and supported check types front-loaded. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 creation tool with a nested request body, the description covers the core purpose but leaves out when to use it, prerequisites like the client/location pairing noted in the schema, and side-effect context. The rich schema and existing annotations fill much of the gap, but the description alone is only minimally complete.

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 100%, so the detailed field descriptions already carry parameter meaning. The description's mention of host, web address, and TCP port loosely maps to Target fields but adds no syntax, constraints, or required-field guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('uptime check') and explains the check types: ping a host, request a web address, or connect to a TCP port on a schedule. It is clear against the list/get/update siblings by name and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those 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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus viewing, updating, or listing uptime checks. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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