create_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the constraint that dynamic zones require width/height to be 0, which is a useful behavioral trait, but this information also appears in the schema. The description does not mention permissions, return values, or side effects of creation, leaving gaps in the behavioral transparency.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the primary action ('Create a new standard zone') and then addressing the key dimension-setting decision. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

This is a complex 27-parameter create operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the most important distinction (fixed vs dynamic) but does not mention that 'name' is the only required field, nor what the created zone object looks like in the response. Given the schema's detailed parameter documentation and the tool's relatively high complexity, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete for full orientation.

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 provides descriptions for 100% of the 27 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the explicit default for 'dimensions' ('fixed') and reiterates the width/height constraint, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for other parameters. Overall, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds little extra semantic value.

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 'Create a new standard zone' — a specific verb and resource — and distinguishes this tool from other zone types (email, catalog, vast) by using the qualifier 'standard'. It also highlights the fixed/dynamic dimension modes, which is a key feature of standard zones. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools as seen in high-scoring examples.

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 implicit usage context by referring to 'standard zone', implying this is not for email or catalog zones. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other zone types. However, it does provide guidance on setting dimensions to 'dynamic' vs 'fixed', which is a contextual usage instruction, though it is parameter-focused rather than tool-selection-focused.

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