createTransport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new transport request' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that this is a mutation tool (creating something) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable parameter documentation when the schema 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 'Create a new transport request' clearly states the action (create) and resource (transport request), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'transportConfigurations', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool versus other transport-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' and 'transportConfigurations' present, there's no indication of whether this tool is for initial setup, ongoing requests, or specific contexts. The lack of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among related tools.

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