arvan_create_cdn_app

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirm it's a mutating operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating 'Create'. It does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the app already exists for the domain. With annotations already present, the description contributes minimal additional transparency.

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 description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested 'app' parameter and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It does not clarify the configuration format for the app object or any constraints on the domain. Related sibling tools exist, but no guidance links them together.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'domain' is the target for the app, but provides no information about the 'app' parameter, which is a complex object with additionalProperties: true. The agent lacks details on what keys or values the object should contain, making it hard to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the tool creates a CDN app (edge application) and specifies it's for a domain. The action and resource are unambiguous, and the tool name matches. Among siblings, this is the only tool for creating a CDN app, so differentiation is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arvan_update_cdn_app, arvan_list_cdn_apps, or arvan_delete_cdn_app. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing domain, or conditions that would make other tools more appropriate.

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