create_auth_server

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic creation operation. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether changes require an apply, authentication/authorization needs, or whether it can overwrite existing servers).

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, focused sentence with no filler words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and the supported types, making it efficiently structured.

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 18 parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain that different parameters apply depending on the 'type' field (LDAP vs. RADIUS), though the schema's per-parameter descriptions partially compensate. Without this guidance, an agent may struggle to choose the correct required fields for a particular type.

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%, with each parameter individually documented (e.g., port defaults, LDAP/RADIUS specific fields). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('authentication server'), and specifies the two supported types (LDAP or RADIUS), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_auth_server or delete_auth_server.

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 verb 'Create' and resource name imply this is for creating new auth servers, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_auth_server or delete_auth_server, nor mention of any prerequisites or post-creation steps.

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