Create IT Glue Flexible Asset

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world semantics (openWorldHint: true) and is non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the creation workflow and prerequisite tools, though it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisite guidance and parameter notes. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 output schema, the description provides adequate context about prerequisites and basic return information ('The created flexible asset'). However, it could be more complete by describing what happens on duplicate creation attempts or error scenarios, given the annotations show it's non-idempotent.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, briefly mentioning that traits use 'field name-keys' and response_format options, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 specific action ('Create a new flexible asset') and resource ('in IT Glue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like itglue_update_flexible_asset or itglue_get_flexible_asset. It precisely identifies the operation without being tautological.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming two prerequisite tools (itglue_list_flexible_asset_types and itglue_list_flexible_asset_fields) that must be used first to obtain required IDs and field information. This gives clear context for proper tool sequencing.

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