create_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Создать' (Create) implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or side effects. It lacks crucial context for a creation tool, leaving the agent with minimal operational insight.

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 phrase 'Создать action или controller', which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally brief. The structure is minimal but fails to earn its place by adding insufficient value.

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 a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'action' or 'controller' is, the expected outcomes, error handling, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools like create_app_structure. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in Russian (e.g., 'ID приложения' for app_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 'Создать action или controller' (Create action or controller) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_action' in Russian. It doesn't specify what an 'action' or 'controller' is in this context, what resource it creates, or how it differs from sibling tools like create_app_structure or create_model. The purpose is vague and lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., create_app_structure might be a prerequisite, or create_model might be for different resources). There's no explicit or implied usage context, making it misleadingly simplistic.

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