apps_create

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

The description states the action (create) and annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, uniqueness constraints, or side effects, leaving gaps beyond the annotation.

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 description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool is a creation action with required parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about the creation process, error handling, or the structure of the returned object.

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?

The description does not elaborate on any parameters. With 75% schema description coverage, the schema itself handles most parameter documentation, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new Databricks App.' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Databricks App'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes nicely from sibling tools like apps_get or apps_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apps_deploy or apps_update. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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