abx_post_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's only added content is the raw POST path, which merely restates the annotation title. Nothing is said about side effects, authentication, or what happens on duplicate names.

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 three lines say the same thing three times ('Create an action', 'Creates a new action', 'POST /abx/api/resources/actions'), so length is wasted on redundancy rather than on useful detail. It is short but not efficient.

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 creation endpoint taking a ~25-property nested body with required fields like actionType, entrypoint, runtime and orgId, and with no output schema, the description should at least say what an ABX action is and what the required payload means. Instead it repeats the tool name and path.

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 is 3 even though the description says nothing about the single nested body parameter. Notably the schema labels the body 'Properties of the action to patch', a confusing mismatch for a create operation that the description does nothing to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new action'), which is enough to tell it apart from read/delete siblings like abx_get_all_actions or abx_delete_action. It does not, however, differentiate it from closely related write-path siblings such as abx_post_actions_by_id_action_runs or abx_put_actions_by_id.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an existing org, runtime, or project, and no note about how it relates to version-creation or import tools. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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