subscription_availabilities_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 burden for a mutation tool. It discloses deprecation but nothing about permissions, idempotency, conflict behavior, or what is created beyond the raw path; for an unannotated POST this is a thin behavioral story.

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-loads the deprecation warning, which is good. But the path is printed twice verbatim ('POST /v1/subscriptionAvailabilities (POST /v1/subscriptionAvailabilities)'), which is pure redundancy in a one-sentence 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?

The body is a nested JSON:API envelope, and pointing to the named OpenAPI schema is appropriate since no output schema exists. Still, for a deprecated create tool with no annotations, the definition offers no migration path or creation side effects, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 one body parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it, giving a baseline of 3. The pointer to components.schemas.SubscriptionAvailabilityCreateRequest is helpful for locating the JSON:API envelope but adds no semantic detail about the fields themselves.

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 POST path and resource name convey a create action on subscriptionAvailabilities, and the [DEPRECATED] tag adds a useful qualifier. However, it never explains in plain language what a subscription availability is or how it differs from siblings like subscription_plan_availabilities_create_instance. The purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

Marking the tool [DEPRECATED] is a genuine usage signal that steers an agent toward alternatives, which is more than most definitions offer. But it names no replacement tool and gives no positive when-to-use condition, so the guidance stops at 'probably avoid this'.

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