Create client

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait not covered by annotations: generated credentials are returned once and 'are not retrievable again in plaintext.' It also instructs the agent to surface the output to the user, which is actionable guidance. This adds significant value beyond the annotations, which only mark readOnlyHint as false (confirming mutation) but provide no detail about credential handling.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and credential generation, the second highlights the critical output handling. All information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description must explain the return value. It states that credentials and connection info are returned and must be surfaced, which covers the essential requirement. However, it does not detail the exact structure of the returned credentials (e.g., fields like uuid, password, port), which could be important for the agent to correctly communicate to the user. Still, for a tool with 6 parameters and a protocol enum, the description is largely complete.

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%, so each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., inboundId says 'see list_inbounds', totalGB says 'Converted to bytes automatically'). The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas. It would need to compensate for ambiguous parameters to score higher, which is not the case here.

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 client') and specifies the resource ('on an existing inbound') along with the key distinctive behavior: auto-generated credentials (UUID/password/keys based on protocol). It differentiates from sibling tools like update_client or delete_client, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 the prerequisite of an existing inbound ('on an existing inbound') and the schema references list_inbounds for the inboundId, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer this over update_client or list_clients, leaving the agent to infer the conditions.

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