forge_service_create

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 behavioral traits. It reveals the important prerequisite that both linked resources must have versions, which is valuable. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error conditions for duplicate names, or what happens during concurrent operations, leaving some uncertainty.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that first declare the purpose and then highlight a critical precondition. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, all required except one, nested objects), the description is sparse. It omits crucial information such as what the tool returns (no output schema), error handling for duplicate names, or the behavior when optional fields like org_id are omitted. The precondition is helpful but insufficient for a full understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself already documents parameter meanings. The tool description adds no additional context beyond what is in the schema, such as how the 'keyterms' or 'tags' parameters interact with the service creation process.

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 tool creates a new service linking an agent and context graph into a deployable unit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forge_service_update (which updates an existing service) and other create tools like forge_agent_create, which focus on different resources.

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 an explicit precondition: both the agent and context graph must have at least one version. This guides the user on when it's appropriate to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the name and context make it fairly clear.

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