create-service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'WRITE OPERATION: changes PCE state.' It also discloses that clients may pause for user approval and that retrying during the wait is incorrect. This meaningfully informs agent behavior beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no filler: purpose, critical parameter constraint, and an operational warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage requirement is front-loaded.

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?

For a create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection, parameter constraints, side-effect, and retry behavior. It does not discuss duplication, authorization, or the return value, but those are less critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the at-least-one-of constraint, the consumer-side matching behavior of windows_egress_services, and the note that egress only takes process_name/service_name and must be paired with service_ports. This compensates well for what the schema alone does not convey.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Create a service in the PCE.' It then elaborates the three supported service definitions. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update-service or get-services, but the action and noun are specific enough for basic differentiation.

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 practical usage constraints: 'Supply at least one of service_ports, windows_services or windows_egress_services.' It also flags a conditional requirement for windows_egress_services needing a Windows VEN on the consumer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the top benchmark.

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