create_computer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses non-obvious side effects that a bare 'create' would hide — SPN assignment, DNS hostname configuration, and account auto-enablement — plus the duplicate-name failure mode. It stops short of stating required permissions/credentials or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then supporting detail, then an example, then the failure condition — a sensible order with no filler. The second sentence slightly restates the first ("Creates computer account..."), but the incremental detail earns its place.

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 mutation tool with five params, a nested-object param, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, side effects, and failure but omits the default OU behavior and says nothing about what the call returns (no output schema exists to fill that gap). Adequate, but a real gap remains for an agent that needs to chain on the result.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the example showing computer_name and description; it never explains what happens if `ou` is omitted (default container?) or what shape `additional_attributes` expects, despite the nested object.

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?

Opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new computer object in Active Directory"), and the follow-up enumerates the concrete side effects (attributes, SPNs, DNS hostname, enabling the account). The resource is unmistakably distinct from create_user, create_group, and create_organizational_unit, so an agent can route on it without opening a schema.

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 example implies the typical call shape and the failure condition ("Fails if a computer with that name already exists") gives a useful precondition. But there is no guidance on alternatives: nothing tells the agent to use get_computer first to check existence, or modify_computer/enable_computer for objects that already exist rather than recreating them.

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