Create WebSocket application

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether permissions are required, side effects, or what happens on conflict. It relies entirely on the single word 'Create'.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence, 10 words, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient for such a specific action.

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?

The description is too brief for a creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what a WebSocket application is, how it relates to the cluster, or what the response will be. More context is needed.

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 already documents all parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 action (create), resource (a new application), and context (for a WebSocket cluster). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_application (general) and create_websocket_cluster (cluster, not app).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing WebSocket cluster, or mention when not to use it. Siblings like list_websocket_applications or get_websocket_application exist but are not compared.

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