vast42_create_non_linear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action 'Create', which implies a mutation, but does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot anticipate the outcome beyond a generic creation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It directly conveys the action and resource without filler. It earns its place by being efficient and easily parsed.

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?

The tool is a simple CRUD creation endpoint with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and lacks context about the resulting object, required parent entities, or how this fits into the VAST 4.2 workflow. The schema covers parameters, but the agent has no information about return values or operational context, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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%, as each parameter has a description (e.g., 'Name', 'Width in pixels'). The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema handles the heavy lifting. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not improve or detract from the schema's clarity.

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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('VAST 4.2 non-linear media'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vast42_create_linear' by specifying 'non-linear media', and the version 'VAST 4.2' avoids confusion with non-prefixed tools. However, it does not elaborate on what a non-linear media represents in the VAST context, leaving slight ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vast42_create_linear' or 'vast_create_non_linear_media'. There is no mention of prerequisites, required relationships to ads/creatives, or scenarios where this tool should be selected. The agent must infer the use case solely from the name and schema.

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