create_config

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Create ... new' is consistent with a non-destructive write operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as duplicate-name behavior, validation requirements, or response behavior.

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, tightly written sentence beginning with the action and resource. It contains no filler and is appropriately minimal for the tool's simple surface.

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?

This is a creation tool with a required nested config object, no output schema, and no explanation of how to construct a valid config. The one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to know what values to provide or what to expect after creation.

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 only 50%: the 'name' parameter has no description, and 'config' is only described as 'Scraping configuration'. The tool description repeats the phrase 'scrape configuration' but does not explain what the config object should contain or how name is used.

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 identifies the verb 'Create' and the resource 'scrape configuration', and adds the purpose 'for reuse'. It does not explicitly distinguish create_config from the sibling generate_config, which could sound similar, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 create_config versus update_config or generate_config, even though those siblings exist. An agent must infer that create is for new configurations and update is for existing ones; the description does not state this.

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