accessibility_declarations_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutating create, not whether it requires an app relationship or specific role, not whether it fails on duplicates, and not what it returns. The only behavioral hint (POST) is already implied by the name and path.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy: the endpoint path is duplicated needlessly in parentheses and no informational content is added. There is nothing to reward beyond the fact that it is a single sentence.

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 create endpoint with a required nested JSON:API body, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies none of the information an agent needs to call it correctly. Referring to an external OpenAPI component does not fill the gap.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, so a baseline of 3 would apply, but the description merely repeats the schema's own text ('see OpenAPI components.schemas.AccessibilityDeclarationCreateRequest') and points to an out-of-band document that is not resolvable inside this definition. The single required nested body parameter has additionalProperties {} with no inlined field semantics, so the agent still cannot know what to put in the envelope.

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 the HTTP verb and resource path (POST /v1/accessibilityDeclarations), which does convey 'create an accessibility declaration', but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/endpoint with the path repeated verbatim inside parentheses and no human-readable statement of purpose. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from its siblings accessibility_declarations_get_instance, accessibility_declarations_update_instance, and accessibility_declarations_delete_instance.

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?

There is no guidance at all on when to use this tool versus the sibling get/update/delete instance operations, nor any mention of prerequisites such as which app or version the declaration must be attached to. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name.

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