yapi_create_interface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds a list of supported features but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or idempotency. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description provides marginal extra context.

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 zero wasted words. It immediately states the primary action and lists the key supported facets. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool with 21 parameters and 5 required ones, the description is extremely sparse. It does not highlight required fields, provide examples, or explain how to structure the request. While an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial orientation an agent needs to correctly invoke this complex tool. The minimalism leaves major 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description lists categories (request parameters, body, response, status, tags) but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('创建' = create) and resource ('YApi 接口' = YApi interface), and lists supported aspects (request parameters, body, response, status, tags). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like yapi_update_interface, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions that favor this over yapi_update_interface, or any exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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