Создание приложения в Timeweb Cloud

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is disclosed. The description adds 'automatic determination of project parameters,' implying some parameters are inferred, but it does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or what happens on creation. Since the description carries little behavioral detail beyond the annotation baseline, it earns a low score.

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 no filler words. Every word contributes to the core message: what the tool creates and where. It is perfectly concise for a tool whose parameter details are already fully specified in the schema.

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?

Despite the high complexity (16 parameters, 11 required, no output schema), the description omits essential contextual information: what the tool returns, preconditions (e.g., existing project or provider), and how 'automatic determination' affects the parameters. The schema covers parameter semantics but does not compensate for the lack of integration-level guidance, leaving the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, with each parameter having detailed Russian descriptions (e.g., 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - переменные окружения. Пользователь должен указать их самостоятельно' and framework guidance). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the vague 'automatic determination.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate further.

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 verb 'Создает' (creates) and the resource 'приложение в Timeweb Cloud' (application in Timeweb Cloud), making the primary action explicit. It also adds 'с автоматическим определением параметров проекта' (with automatic determination of project parameters), which hints at a useful capability. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other create_* siblings beyond the unique resource type, and 'приложение' could be ambiguous without additional context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project or VCS provider) or scenarios where another tool like create_server or create_project would be more appropriate. The only contextual hint is embedded in the schema's framework parameter, which is not part of the description.

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