iaas_create_compute_gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the endpoint: nothing about required permissions, whether the resource is immediately usable, or the constraint that this applies to NSX cloud accounts only (which is buried in the schema).

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the first two lines say exactly the same thing ("Create a compute gateway" / "Create a new compute gateway") and the third is just the HTTP route. Nothing is wasted on noise, but one of the three lines is pure redundancy.

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 create/mutation tool taking a nested configuration object with required NAT rules, networks, and projectId, with no output schema to explain the response. Given that complexity, the description leaves an agent without any knowledge of what the resource represents, its cloud-account precondition, or what comes back.

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% and the nested body documents name, natRules, networks, projectId, deploymentId, and customProperties thoroughly, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about any of these fields, which is consistent with the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("create a compute gateway"), so the basic purpose is clear. But it names no configuration fields and gives no hint of what distinguishes it from siblings like iaas_create_compute_nat or iaas_create_network, so an agent cannot tell scope from the text 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., NSX-T cloud account requirement noted only inside the schema), and no mention of alternatives. The tool name carries all the routing signal; the description contributes nothing.

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