iaas_create_zone

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 write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: not whether creation is synchronous or async, what happens on duplicate zone names, whether computeIds or tagsToMatch change matching scope, or any permission requirement. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two lines with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but content is essentially duplicated from the name and the annotation title. Front-loading is fine; the problem is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 tool with a nested 7-property body (required name + regionId, arrays of compute IDs, placement policy enum, tag-matching rules) and no output schema. For that complexity, two words and a path leave critical things unstated: what the call returns, whether the zone is usable immediately, and how the zone interacts with project/region assignments.

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, regionId, folder, computeIds, placementPolicy and customProperties individually, so the schema carries the semantics. The description contributes nothing beyond the endpoint path, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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?

"Create zone" plus the raw path restates the tool name (iaas_create_zone) and the annotation title ("POST /iaas/api/zones") without adding anything. No scope, no explanation of what an IaaS zone is or how it relates to regions/compute, and no differentiation from iaas_update_zone, iaas_delete_zone, or iaas_get_zones.

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 regionId must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as iaas_create_region or iaas_update_zone for modifying existing zones. An 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.