Create addon

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description enriches this abstraction with concrete behavior: 'Calling this again creates another addon, even with the same name — it does not update an existing one.' This prevents a common LLM failure mode of assuming create calls are idempotent or upsert-like. No contradiction with any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical non-idempotency warning lands in the second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Required parameters and enum values are encoded in the schema, and the region schema comment already routes agents to region_list. The description supplies the one behavioral fact that matters most — repeated calls create duplicates — which the annotations only convey abstractly. With no output schema and a simple flat structure, nothing essential is missing, though post-creation results or next steps are unspecified.

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 50%: region and name have descriptions, while type and project are undocumented. The description's parenthetical '(Postgres, Redis, or S3)' merely restates the schema's type enum and adds no meaning beyond it, and it does not compensate for the missing project semantics. However, the phrase 'Lizard project' provides a small domain hint for what project refers to.

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 ('provision') and resource ('managed database or storage addon') with concrete types enumerated in parentheses (Postgres, Redis, S3), and scopes it to a Lizard project. The second sentence adds that the tool always creates a new addon, clarifying what it is not (an update tool). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like service_create without needing to inspect the 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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use this when the user wants to provision a managed database or storage addon...' which gives a clear activation condition. The scoping to Postgres/Redis/S3 addons implicitly separates it from service_create and other creation siblings, but it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition explicitly.

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