iaas_create_on_demand_security_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the POST endpoint string — nothing about async request-tracker behavior, validation failures, or what 'on-demand' implies operationally.

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?

Three near-identical lines ('Create on-demand security group' / 'Provision a new on-demand security group' / 'POST /iaas/api/security-groups') repeat one idea, and the endpoint path is already in the annotation title. The sentences do not earn their place.

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 mutation tool with a rich nested body and no output schema, the description omits what gets created, whether the call is asynchronous, and what a caller should expect back. Annotations and schema carry most of the weight, but the tool's central concept ('on-demand') is left undefined.

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 (name, projectId, rules, tags, customProperties) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource pair ('create ... security group') is clear, but the key modifier 'on-demand' is never explained, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from sibling tools like iaas_change_security_groups, iaas_reconfigure_security_group, or iaas_update_security_group. The three lines restate the same fact rather than adding specificity.

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., that a projectId and often a deploymentId are needed), and no mention of alternative tools for managing security groups. The agent must 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.