create_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., billing impact), idempotency, or error states. The only behavioral hint is that after creation, one must configure a source.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and providing actionable follow-up guidance. There is no superfluous information.

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 simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. However, it lacks information on return values, confirmation of creation, or error handling, which would be helpful for completeness.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The naming convention for serviceName is already in the schema.

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 it creates a new app service in a project, using the verb 'cria' (creates) and resource 'serviço de app'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_database or create_mount by specifying the scope and next steps to configure the source.

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 implies use when creating a new service and then configuring a source, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_service or rename_service. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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