vast_create_zone

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the action. It doesn't mention return values, required fields, or side effects, leaving the agent without context about what creating a zone entails.

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 minimal but not verbose; however, its brevity sacrifices useful context. It is front-loaded but under-specified, earning a middle score.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the tool's six parameters including nested objects and mutual exclusivity, the one-line description is insufficient to fully understand the operation. It doesn't cover success/failure behavior, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the description doesn't need to restate them. However, it also doesn't add any additional context, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Create a new VAST zone' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (VAST zone), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vast_create_placement or vast_create_campaign. It is succinct and unambiguous.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It lacks any guidance that would help an agent choose it over other zone-creation tools like create_zone or vast_create_placement.

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