Create Access App Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait: the new app exists in a deny-all state until a policy is attached, which prevents an agent from assuming the hostname is immediately protected. It omits other behavioral facts such as required permissions, idempotency on repeated calls, or whether an existing app on the same domain errors.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the primary effect is front-loaded before the follow-up caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the critical post-creation state an agent must know. The remaining gap is minor — no mention of zone scoping or what happens if the domain is already protected — which keeps it just short of fully 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter (name, domain, zone_id, session_duration) is documented in the schema itself, including the 'No scheme' constraint and the default. The description adds only an indirect reference to the domain parameter and no syntax, formatting, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a concrete effect — putting a hostname behind a Cloudflare Access login — which is clearly a creation operation on an Access application and is distinguishable from delete_access_app_tool and list_access_apps_tool. It is slightly indirect in that it never uses the word 'create' or 'application', so an agent must map 'hostname behind Access login' to the create_access_app_tool name itself.

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 supplies the key context that a freshly created app has no policy and denies everyone, implicitly naming create_access_policy_tool as the required follow-up. It does not state when to choose this over other creation siblings (e.g., create_dns_record_tool) or any preconditions on the zone, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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