create_shaper_queue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It only restates 'Create' without disclosing side effects like immediate application or configuration changes. No extra value beyond the structured fields.

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 filler. It is immediately clear what the tool does, and every word 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?

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain the parent-child relationship between shaper and queue, nor the behavior of apply_immediately. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema fully documents each field. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Create a traffic shaper queue'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like search_shaper_queues, update_shaper_queue, delete_shaper_queue, and create_traffic_shaper. It unambiguously states the action and object.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires an existing parent shaper (parent_id) or how it relates to create_traffic_shaper. There is no 'use when...' or exclusionary language.

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