app_asset_library_placements_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, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or what state must exist before a placement can be created. The only substantive hint is the pointer to the request body schema, which addresses shape, not behavior.

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 and front-loaded, but the path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is dead weight rather than conciseness. The remaining sentence about the body shape is the only useful part.

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 mutation endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API envelope body, the description should at minimum cover prerequisites and side effects. Instead it provides only an endpoint path and a schema pointer, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke 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?

With a single 'body' parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines the parameter and the description adds only a reference to the governing OpenAPI component schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here because the schema does the explanatory work.

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 only restates the HTTP verb and path ('POST /v1/appAssetLibraryPlacements'), which is a mechanical echo of the tool name rather than a statement of what a placement is or what creating one accomplishes. An agent gets no domain-level understanding of the resource, so it cannot easily distinguish this from siblings like app_asset_library_placement_ordering_requests_create_instance or app_asset_library_placements_get_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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing app asset library image or video), and no mention of any alternative tool. The sibling set contains several closely related placement tools, and nothing here helps the agent choose among them.

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