create_provision

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the provisioning flow, including sub-statuses and token expiration. It implies a write operation and need for session creation, though permissions or prerequisites are not mentioned.

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 a single paragraph containing multiple details. It is clear and front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., using bullets for sub-statuses). Nonetheless, each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers return value (provision_id), sub-statuses, and token details. Error handling or idempotency is missing, but for a provisioning tool it is fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters relate to the overall flow (e.g., token expiry after provisioning), beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool 'Provisions a new UserPerson' and returns a provision_id for monitoring. It distinguishes from siblings like get_provision and close_provision by specifying its role in the onboarding flow.

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 gives clear context: use to provision a user, then immediately create a session with create_user_session. It also mentions monitoring via get_provision but does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios (e.g., provisioning a company).

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