arvan_create_security_group

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether it overwrites existing groups, requires specific permissions, or what happens on name conflict.

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 concise (single sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but fails to provide value beyond the name.

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 creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, validation rules, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., attach security group to server).

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the meaning of 'name', 'description', or 'region', leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 'Create a security group' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from other create tools like arvan_create_firewall_rule or arvan_create_server. It lacks specificity about what a security group is in this context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arvan_create_firewall_rule, arvan_list_security_groups). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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