create_agent_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—automatic routing through the 3-signature policy chain—but does not mention auth requirements, return values, reversibility, or the global scope implied by 'every action.'

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 one compact sentence with the critical deprecation notice front-loaded. It contains no filler and earns its place by conveying purpose and the most important usage caveat.

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 has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers purpose and one behavioral trait. It omits what the caller should expect in return, whether creation activates the context immediately, and any side-effect warnings needed for a creation tool.

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 structured data already documents all five parameters, including defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, keeping this at the baseline.

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 verb+resource: 'Create an enforcement context' and adds a specific behavioral qualifier—'automatically runs every action through the 3-signature policy chain'—which distinguishes it from generic create tools like create_policy_context.

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 marks the tool as deprecated and directs users to an alternative: 'use gateway.aeoess.com REST API.' This provides a clear when-not-to-use signal and names a specific replacement, satisfying the highest usage-guideline bar.

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