local_ydb_create_tenant

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true and other hints. The description adds behavioral context: without confirm=true it only returns planned commands without creating anything, and it requires the static node to be running. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention more about the creation process.

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 composed of two concise and informative sentences. No extraneous information; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 parameter details in the schema and the annotations, the description adds necessary context about prerequisites and sequence. It does not describe return values (no output schema), but the tool's behavior is adequately covered for its complexity.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces the confirm parameter's behavior but does not add substantially new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 CMS tenant, specifies the prerequisite of a running static node, and distinguishes usage from sibling tools by indicating it should be used before local_ydb_start_dynamic_node for tenant topologies.

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 the tool ('before local_ydb_start_dynamic_node for tenant topologies') and explains the effect of the confirm parameter for dry-run vs execution. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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