remnawave_infra_billing_create_provider

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

The description labels it as a 'mutation', but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or the two-step confirmation process implied by 'confirmToken' and 'mutationApproved' parameters.

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 extremely concise, but it sacrifices all meaningful content. It is a single phrase that adds no value, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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 tool with 4 parameters, a nested payload object, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, usage context, or any details beyond the name.

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 explain parameters. It adds nothing about the payload structure, confirmToken purpose, responseMode options, or mutationApproved usage. Completely unhelpful.

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 states the verb 'create' and resource 'provider', which conveys a basic creation action. However, it does not define what a provider is in this billing context, so the purpose is vague and only marginally better than the tool name itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remnawave_infra_billing_update_provider' or 'remnawave_infra_billing_get_provider'. No context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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