alternative_distribution_keys_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 largely fails it: no mention of authentication scopes, rate limits, idempotency, side effects, or what the response contains. The one piece of real information is that the payload follows a JSON:API envelope defined by AlternativeDistributionKeyCreateRequest, which is a useful but minimal disclosure.

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 content is duplicated verbatim: the path 'POST /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys' appears twice, with the second occurrence in parentheses adding nothing. That is waste in an already sparse description.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body whose shape is deferred to an external OpenAPI component the agent may not have. Critical invocation information (required fields, envelope structure, auth requirements) is effectively out of reach.

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?

There is a single 'body' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description repeats the same pointer ('see OpenAPI components.schemas.AlternativeDistributionKeyCreateRequest') without adding field-level semantics, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name as an HTTP route ('POST /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys') rather than stating what the tool accomplishes. An agent can infer creation from the name and the POST verb, but the text itself adds no purpose statement and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling tools like alternative_distribution_keys_get_instance or alternative_distribution_keys_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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance of any kind. The only signal is the POST path, which comes from the name rather than the description text.

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