abx_create_action_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond re-stating the POST path already duplicated in the annotation title — it does not say that each call appends a new version, whether the supplied body replaces the action definition, or what permissions/project scoping are required for non-system actions.

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?

Line 1 and line 2 say the same thing in slightly different words, and line 3 is just the HTTP method and path already present in the annotation title. The text is short, but almost none of it earns its place; information density is near zero rather than front-loaded with useful content.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint with a large nested request body and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the response (version id? full object?), whether the new version becomes active/released, or how the body relates to the existing action definition. For a 3-required-param nested-payload creation call, that leaves meaningful unknowns.

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 the baseline of 3 applies: id, projectId and body are documented in the schema. The description contributes no extra meaning, which is a real gap given the nested body requires a full action payload (actionType, entrypoint, runtime, orgId, name) that an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a version for an action") and repeats it in the second line, so the agent knows exactly what object is produced. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings such as abx_release_action_version, abx_delete_action_version, abx_restore_action_version, or abx_put_actions_by_id, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this rather than the release/unrelease/restore/patch version siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the action must already exist, or that a version can be created without releasing it). The only guidance is the verb itself, which is exactly the bare minimum.

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