subscription_versions_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: no auth/scope requirements, no note on side effects or whether creation is re-runnable, no indication of what is created or what happens on conflict. It gives only the route and a schema pointer.

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 structurally wasteful: the same route string appears twice in immediate succession ("POST /v1/subscriptionVersions (POST /v1/subscriptionVersions)"), and nothing that follows adds information. It is terse without being informative.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API body, the description should at minimum name the resource being created and note the required envelope/relationships. It instead outsources everything to an unspecified external OpenAPI document, leaving the agent unable to call this correctly from the definition alone.

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 at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the documentation load, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's "Body shape: see OpenAPI components.schemas.SubscriptionVersionCreateRequest" merely duplicates the schema's own text word-for-word rather than adding required-field or envelope semantics.

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 raw HTTP route ("POST /v1/subscriptionVersions") and repeats it verbatim in parentheses. It never states in plain language that it creates a subscription version, nor what a subscription version is, and it offers no differentiation from the many sibling create-instance tools (subscriptions_create_instance, subscription_group_versions_create_instance, in_app_purchase_versions_create_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, no mention of required relationships or identifiers, and no named alternative. Given the huge set of near-identical create_instance siblings in this server, an agent has 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.