Create Rack Storage

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns the created record including the assigned id, and it describes the 422 error response with the offending field named. It also flags unit ambiguities for width, height, and max_wattage, which are important runtime caveats not visible in annotations.

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 thorough but well-structured. It flows from purpose to domain definition, to scope distinction, to return value, and to error handling. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, ambiguous units), the description covers all necessary aspects: what the resource is, how to resolve IDs, what the return value is, how validation failures are reported, and how to handle unit ambiguity. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already covers 88% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds further semantic context beyond the schema, such as clarifying that rack storage is the physical container and that units for some fields are unspecified. The schema descriptions themselves are highly informative (e.g., explaining that starting_unit is not necessarily 1-based), and the overall guidance helps avoid misinterpretation.

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 opens with 'Create a new rack storage in Hudu,' clearly stating the action and resource. It also defines what a rack storage is and explicitly distinguishes it from rack storage items, which are created via separate hudu_*_rack_storage_item tools. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'It is the container only: the equipment mounted in it is modelled separately as rack storage items, via the hudu_*_rack_storage_item tools.' It also provides actionable guidance for resolving foreign keys, such as using hudu_list_companies for company_id and hudu_list_rack_storages for location_id. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how to prepare inputs.

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