Create an endpoint

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the endpoint is free, provides a stable HTTPS address and key on port 8000, and the key is shown only once during creation. It also names the related retrieval tool. It does not discuss idempotency behavior or what happens if the same name is reused, which would be helpful for a non-idempotent creation tool.

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 short and mostly information-dense, but it is written as sentence fragments and opens with “A new Endpoint” rather than a clear verb. The line break and phrasing around “e.g. one per customer you serve” make it less front-loaded and slightly awkward. It avoids bloat but could be structured more cleanly.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: access level, cost, what is created, that the key is shown once, how to launch machines against it, and where to retrieve the key later. It is close to complete, with only idempotency and repeated-creation behavior left 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the name can represent the customer it serves. The description reinforces this with “e.g. one per customer you serve” but adds no distinct naming constraints or format details beyond the schema. This fits the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 identifies the resource as a new Endpoint and explains its practical meaning: a stable HTTPS address and key for the user's own server. It distinguishes the tool from get_endpoint_key by noting that the key is shown once here and can be retrieved again there. The verb 'create' is only implied, not explicitly stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: intended for owners and admins, typically one per customer, and explicitly points to launch_machine(endpoint=...) as the follow-up action. It also contrasts with get_endpoint_key for retrieving the key later. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is not a 5.

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