create_config

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

Annotations only say it is a write with destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context: name collisions abort rather than overwrite, unknown services abort, the snippet is persisted to the database, and the scheduler applies it asynchronously so the tool cannot confirm the config is live. That async/liveness caveat is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. It does not mention auth or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 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 action, then the sibling routing, then the persistence caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the tool cannot confirm the config is live, which sets correct expectations about the response. For a 5-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only the permission/auth surface is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so type, name, data, service, and is_draft are all documented in the schema with examples and constraints. The description only adds the constraint that name must not already exist; it adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Create one custom config snippet from text (method api)') and immediately bounds the operation with its failure conditions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the file-based sibling create_configs_from_files, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('Use create_configs_from_files to upload files'), and states two blocking conditions (existing name, unknown service). It lacks a fuller when-not-to-use clause, e.g. whether update_config should be preferred for an existing snippet, but the routing guidance is clear.

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