Create an Edgegap application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds that creating an application does not deploy anything, which is crucial behavioral context. It also implies a non-destructive nature but avoids repeating annotation-mandated details. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the tool's limited scope.

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 only two sentences long, with the essential action front-loaded and the critical usage condition immediately following. Every word adds value, and the structure is efficient without redundancy.

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 that the tool has a simple schema with two simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for correct invocation. It lacks details on default behavior for is_active, but the schema covers that. The main gap is not specifying what the response looks like, but since there's no output schema, it's not mandatory. Overall, it's complete enough for its complexity.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline of 3. It doesn't repeat parameter names, but it also doesn't offer additional context like naming conventions beyond the schema's note.

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 new application to hold game server versions, distinguishing it from related operations like creating an app version. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's creating the top-level container versus other resource types, but the verb 'create' and resource 'application' are specific enough. It could more strongly differentiate from edgegap_create_app_version, but the follow-up note implicitly does so.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to call this only after confirming no suitable application exists via edgegap_list_apps, and it tells the user to follow with edgegap_create_app_version. This provides clear when-to-use and sequential guidance, surpassing typical usage notes.

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