Create Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that resource models serve as templates for instances but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as uniqueness constraints, permissions, or side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description's minimal extra transparency is acceptable.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the action, and the second provides useful context about resource models. There is no redundant filler, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 creation tool with an output schema, this description gives sufficient context about the resource model's role as a template. It does not explain return values, but the output schema already covers that. It could mention prerequisites or uniqueness, but the current description is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (name, schema, description). The description provides conceptual context about what a resource model is, which indirectly helps understand the schema parameter, but it does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new Lifecycle Manager resource model' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_integration_model and create_template by explicitly targeting 'resource model'.

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 explains that resource models define structure, validation rules, and lifecycle workflows for network services and infrastructure components, providing clear context on the tool's intended use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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