Create ACI Custom App

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already convey that this is a mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'create'. Notably, the schema includes a skip_dry_run parameter implying a dry-run validation behavior, but the description does not mention this or any side effects, making it under-transparent for a creation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is easy to parse and directly states the action. However, it is minimal to the point of lacking useful structure, such as separating out key details (e.g., validation, required fields) that could aid comprehension. Still, it earns its place and has no wordiness.

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?

This is a complex creation tool with nested objects, a dry-run option, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain what an ACI custom app is, what should go into app_json/functions_json, or the significance of skip_dry_run. The annotations and schema cover some basics, but the description alone is inadequate to guide an agent through using this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (app_json, functions_json, secrets, skip_dry_run), so the schema already documents the parameters well. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so it fits the baseline for high schema coverage. No additional semantic detail is provided by the description.

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 ACI custom app with its functions' clearly states the verb (create), resource (ACI custom app), and scope (with functions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent or create_workflow because it names the specific resource type. However, it could be slightly more detailed about what an ACI custom app is, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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, such as lyzr_create_aci_configuration or lyzr_create_lyzr_aci_tool. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate based solely on the name.

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