Dpanel Compose Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: id triggers update mode and the tool returns the project id. However, it does not disclose side effects (whether creating/updating a project also deploys or starts containers), permission requirements, or what happens to existing containers on update — notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the create/update purpose and then the parameter rules, with essentially no filler. Dense and efficient, though the parenthetical constraint is somewhat compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still notes the returned project id, so return values are covered. The main remaining gap is that environment and title have no semantics anywhere, and side effects of a mutation tool with no annotations are not described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document yaml semantics, the id-update rule, and supplies the compose_type enum values (text|remoteUrl|outPath) that the schema itself lacks — genuinely valuable. But title and environment remain completely undocumented, so coverage is partial.

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+resource ('创建/更新 compose 项目') and clarifies that it both creates and updates depending on the id parameter, which distinguishes it from siblings like dpanel_compose_deploy or dpanel_compose_destroy. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create/update scope is 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?

Gives concrete selection logic: pass id to update, omit it to create, and compose_type must be one of text|remoteUrl|outPath while storagePath/store cannot be created manually. No explicit 'use X instead' routing against dpanel_compose_deploy/get_from_git/get_from_uri, but the when-to-use conditions are clear.

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