create_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavior: the service is always created with the account default status and status cannot be set at creation. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., duplicate name rejection) or what is returned, which a mutation tool would ideally mention.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then requirements, then the status caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

A 9-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the required-field and status constraints, and the description supplies both plus the type-lookup path. The main gap is that nothing tells the agent what the response contains (e.g., new service ID) or what to chain next.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by restating the two required fields and pointing at the exact reference-data lookup for TypeId. That cross-parameter workflow hint is not in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new service') and immediately separates the creation step from the follow-up mutation by naming update_service. An agent can distinguish it from update_service and search_services without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing: use get_reference_data with entity "servicetypes" to obtain a valid TypeId, and use update_service when a non-default status is needed. It stops short of saying when to create versus not create (e.g., duplicates), but the operational guidance is clear.

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