nemesis_create_app

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns an install token (nsk_), requires the NEMESIS_API_KEY env var, and positions the action as the first step in a protection workflow. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with 'create'. No contradiction found, and the additional details (auth, output) are useful.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes only necessary information: what it does, the output, workflow context, and a requirement. No redundant phrasing.

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 simple create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, the return token, the next step, and the environment prerequisite. It doesn't address failure modes or idempotency, but given the two-parameter schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it.

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% with both parameters (name and kind) already described in the schema. The description's mention of 'app/API/LLM' loosely aligns with the kind enum but adds no new parameter semantics. Therefore, it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Nemesis Shield app in the developer's account and return its install token (nsk_)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like nemesis_list_apps (listing) and nemesis_protect (protecting), and explicitly mentions the return value.

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 a clear workflow context: 'This is the first step to protect an app/API/LLM: create it, then add the one-line SDK.' It also specifies a prerequisite (NEMESIS_API_KEY env var). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this over siblings.

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