volume_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the volume is immediately available, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds some context (e.g., 'persistent volume for a service') but lacks detailed behavioral information, resulting in a moderate score.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for usage guidelines and related steps. Every sentence earns its place by providing clear value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of creating a persistent volume with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, and related tools. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, errors) and doesn't explain return values, which slightly reduces completeness for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all four parameters (projectId, environmentId, serviceId, mountPath) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new persistent volume for a service'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like volume_list, volume_update, and volume_delete by focusing on creation rather than listing, updating, or deleting volumes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('Best for: Setting up database storage, Configuring persistent data, Adding file storage') and when not to use ('Not for: Temporary storage needs, Static file hosting, Memory caching'). It also lists related tools (service_update, database_deploy) and prerequisites (service_list), offering clear alternatives and context.

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