create_service

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It only states that a new service is created and vaguely describes the config parameter; it omits whether the service is started automatically, what happens on name conflicts, or any permission requirements.

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 purpose statement followed by a compact argument list. It is front-loaded, avoids fluff, and every line provides useful information.

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 simple create tool, the description gives enough to assemble a basic request, especially with the output schema covering return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., whether the service is immediately available, whether project_id must exist), which would help an agent decide and call it correctly.

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?

The schema provides only parameter titles with no descriptions, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: name, project_id, image (with examples), and config (listing ports, env vars, volumes). This adds real meaning, though it omits whether config is required and does not give a precise schema for config.

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 specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('service'), and the platform ('EasyPanel'), making the tool's function immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage or deploy services rather than create them.

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 is given regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_deployment, update_service, or create_project. The intended use is implied by 'Create a new service,' but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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