add_log_service

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

The description discloses it's a write operation and group-level scope, but lacks details on authorization needs, idempotency, return values, or side effects. Given no annotations, the description partially carries the burden but is not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with a prominent warning. Every word serves a purpose, no 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?

The description covers creation, scope, and parameter instructions. However, it omits return value information (e.g., does it return the created service ID?) and does not mention authentication context, which is noticeable given the lack of output schema.

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 description adds crucial semantic guidance beyond the schema: for schema_file, it instructs the agent to read a specific schema file first; for request_body, it references the schema for structure. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 action (creates), the resource (group-level logging service), and scope (within a specified group). It distinguishes from siblings like update_log_service and delete_log_service by being the creation tool.

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 warns it's a write operation requiring user confirmation ('Confirm with user before calling'), providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not contrast with other create tools (e.g., create_connection) or provide alternative scenarios.

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