Create service

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavior context around one-click provisioning and Docker Compose handling. It does not disclose what the operation returns, whether deployment is immediate, or any side effects beyond creation, but for a create tool this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and variations, adds the required parameters, and closes with a decision-relevant version note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex 14-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no schema-level parameter descriptions. The description covers only the Docker Compose variant, environment selection, and core identifiers. It leaves major invocation details unexplained, such as valid values for type, behavior of instant_deploy, and the meaning or structure of urls and tags.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only explains docker_compose_raw, environment_name/environment_uuid, and names project_uuid/server_uuid as required. The remaining 11 parameters — including type, instant_deploy, destination_uuid, urls, tags, force_domain_override, and is_container_label_escape_enabled — have no semantic guidance, leaving an agent unable to determine valid values or whether they are needed.

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 tool creates a 'service' and enumerates its two main forms: one-click services and Docker Compose deployments via docker_compose_raw. It also distinguishes itself from createApplication with the v4.1 note, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling createDatabase despite mentioning 'database' as an example.

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?

It provides explicit required input guidance: project_uuid, server_uuid, and environment_name (or environment_uuid). The version note about Docker Compose deployments being services rather than applications gives the agent a concrete reason to choose this tool over createApplication. However, it does not explain when to choose createService over createDatabase or when to prefer one-click versus Docker Compose modes.

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