Create ACI Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is structurally provided. It does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing configurations, requires prior app creation, or has side effects such as triggering auth flows. No annotation contradiction exists, but the description does not enrich the agent's understanding.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, fitting the minimal scope of the tool.

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?

Despite having a clear action and schema with 100% coverage, the description omits important context such as return values (no output schema), default behavior of security_scheme, whether the app must already exist, and relationship to 'ACI custom app' or 'ACI tool' siblings. This leaves the agent guessing about post-conditions and verification steps for a write operation.

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%, meaning all three parameters are described in the schema. The description only reiterates the app_id concept ('for a given app id') and does not add nuances about security_scheme defaults or overrides. Since the schema carries the full parameter detail, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('ACI app configuration'), and scopes it ('for a given app id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list/delete configuration tools, so the agent knows what action this tool performs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_create_aci_custom_app or lyzr_create_lyzr_aci_tool. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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