Create Tool

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

The description adds only the return value and the OpenAPI source, but does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or the conditional requirement for openai_api_key when enhance_descriptions is true. It does not contradict annotations, but the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) leave operational details unexplained.

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 filler. It conveys the action, the input type, and the return value efficiently.

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?

For a creation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and a complex OpenAPI input, the description is too thin. It omits important context like the enhance_descriptions behavior, default header/parameter handling, and how this tool relates to sibling tool-creation endpoints.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters with field descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond restating the schema input, so 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 clearly states a specific action ('Create a new OpenAPI-based tool from an OpenAPI schema') and names the input format, distinguishing it from agent/session creation tools. It also adds the return value ('Returns the created tool'), making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_create_tool_request, lyzr_update_tool, or lyzr_create_agent. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions such as when enhance_descriptions requires an API key.

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