create_golden_config_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool creates a new tree and highlights features like variable substitution and version management, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing trees), permission requirements, or error scenarios. The output schema covers return details, but behavioral transparency remains partial.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second paragraph provides useful domain context about Golden Configuration trees but is not strictly necessary. It earns a high score for brevity and clarity, though the second paragraph could be trimmed.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and domain context, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how this tool fits with related siblings (e.g., add_golden_config_node) and does not describe the hierarchical structure creation workflow. It is adequate but not fully complete for a create operation.

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. The description adds some context by explaining that variables are part of the tree structure, but it does not go beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Golden Configuration tree on Itential Platform.' It further distinguishes itself by explaining that Golden Configuration trees are hierarchical configuration templates with variable substitution and version management, which helps separate this from sibling tools like create_template or add_golden_config_node.

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?

The description implies usage for creating new top-level configuration trees but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as add_golden_config_node or create_template. It provides background on what the tool does but lacks clear 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, earning a mid-level score.

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