create_endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds that the tool returns the created endpoint with its new public id, and explains the default environment fallback. This provides useful context beyond 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 a single, moderately-sized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Still, every sentence adds value without excessive 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a detailed output schema reference, the description covers key aspects: creation behavior, environment handling, and an example. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that environment_id accepts slugs (e.g., 'production') and that omission uses the default. It also provides an example mapping user input to parameters, which 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 ('Create a new endpoint') and the resource ('in the current workspace'). It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like list_endpoints and update_endpoint by focusing on creation.

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 clear guidance on when to include vs omit environment_id: if the user explicitly names an environment, pass it; otherwise omit. It also gives an example mapping user request to parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for non-creation tasks (e.g., listing or updating).

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