sophos_create_service

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, but the description adds that it 'returns API response status dictionary.' No further behaviors (e.g., duplicate handling, auth requirements) are disclosed, so the description provides only marginal added value beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise, beginning with a clear purpose statement, followed by usage guidance, parameter list, and return info, all within a few bullet points. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage, all parameters with defaults and examples, and return value. An output schema exists, so the return description suffices. Minor missing elements like error handling or duplicate behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 80%, so the description's parameter section largely duplicates the schema. However, it adds useful examples for destination_port (e.g., '8080' or '8000:8080') and clarifies the client parameter as 'Optional SophosFirewallClient instance,' which are beyond the schema. The added value is moderate, not transformative.

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 states 'Create a custom TCP/UDP service definition,' which clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (service definition). Among siblings like sophos_list_services or sophos_delete_service, this tool is uniquely the creation one, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use when adding new port or protocol definitions for firewall rules,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, so it lacks exclusions needed for a perfect score.

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