createTransport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (the action and resource) and contains no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the broader transport management context evident from sibling tool names. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value in explaining parameter relationships or usage nuances.

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') and resource ('a new transport request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'createObject', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a 'transport request' from other creation operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other creation tools like 'createObject' and 'createTransportsConfig'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what makes this tool the right choice for creating transport requests specifically.

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