bundle_id_capabilities_create_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the call is idempotent, what permissions are required, what happens on duplicate capability, or what the response contains. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component is not disclosure of 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?

The sentence is short but wasteful: 'POST /v1/bundleIdCapabilities (POST /v1/bundleIdCapabilities)' duplicates the identical path verbatim, and the remainder only redirects to an external schema. Little of the text earns its place.

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 create/mutation endpoint with nested object input, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do the heavy lifting. Instead it offers a bare endpoint reference, leaving an agent without the information needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (body), so the schema already documents the input and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or field-level meaning beyond repeating the schema's own pointer to components.schemas.BundleIdCapabilityCreateRequest.

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 method and path ('POST /v1/bundleIdCapabilities') plus the name already conveyed by the tool name. It never states what a bundle ID capability is or what creating one accomplishes, so it is effectively a tautology rather than a purpose statement.

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, and no mention of the sibling operations (bundle_id_capabilities_update_instance, bundle_id_capabilities_delete_instance) that an agent would need to choose between. The agent is given nothing to route on.

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