config_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the snippet is only persisted and the scheduler applies it later, so the tool cannot confirm it is live — a critical expectation-setting detail for an async write. It does not cover permissions or duplicate-name handling, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the alternative, then the async caveat. No padding or restated name/title.

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?

With a fully documented schema, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: persistence vs. live application and the single-vs-bulk split. Minor omissions remain (duplicate name behavior, whether the return is the created snippet), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters (including the service/global choice and is_draft) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description's 'from text' hints that data is inline content rather than a file path, but adds nothing about the individual parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Create one custom config snippet from text') and immediately distinguishes it from the bulk sibling configs_upload. An agent can tell exactly which operation this performs without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes multi-file work to configs_upload ('Use configs_upload for several files'), giving a clear when-to-use-this-instead signal. It stops short of distinguishing create from the update siblings (config_update, config_upload_update), so the selection context is not fully closed.

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