local_ydb_create_tenant

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: it explicitly disclosed the plan-only dry-run behavior, that it does nothing without confirm=true, and that it requires the static node to already be running. This complements the annotations nicely, though it could add more about what happens on partial failure or how confirmation output manifests.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with the essential information: the action, the prerequisite, the ordering relative to a sibling tool, and the critical confirm flag semantics. Zero wasted words while covering all the key behavioral dimensions.

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 tool with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: prerequisites, ordering, and the dry-run confirm behavior. It could slightly benefit from mentioning what state implies the tenant is 'configured' or how errors surface, but given the tool's moderate complexity and strong schema, this is nearly complete.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds some useful semantics around the confirm parameter (dry-run vs execute), which is the most important behavioral parameter. With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate and the confirm clarification justifies keeping it there.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create the configured CMS tenant') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by noting it must be used before local_ydb_start_dynamic_node for tenant topologies. It also explains the dry-run/plan-only behavior which separates it from related tenant operations.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before local_ydb_start_dynamic_node for tenant topologies, naming the alternative/sibling tool. It also clarifies the confirm flag behavior ('without confirm=true this returns the planned status/create command and creates nothing'), giving clear when-to-use and prerequisites guidance.

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