create-credential

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether credentials are immediately usable, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it does mention credential types and references another tool for schema details.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 complexity (mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter explanations, and output expectations. While it references 'get-credential-schema' for field requirements, this doesn't fully compensate for the gaps in a creation tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'credential type name' (mapping to 'type') and 'fields are required' (hinting at 'data'), but doesn't explain 'clientId' or 'name' parameters. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, especially with 4 parameters and nested objects in 'data'.

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's purpose: 'Create a credential that can be used by nodes of the specified type.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('credential'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete-credential' and 'get-credential-schema' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'create-project'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'Use get-credential-schema first to see what fields are required for the credential type you want to create.' This explicitly names an alternative tool and gives a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. updating credentials) or mention other alternatives, so it's a 4.

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