create_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens on duplicate names/SKUs, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the '(Holded API v2)' parenthetical is the only near-wasted token. Brevity here reflects terseness rather than sprawl.

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?

The description should do more for a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It never says what is returned (e.g., the created service with its id) or which fields matter most, leaving the agent to infer the post-call state.

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 all five fields (name, sku, tax, price, description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new service'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_services, get_service, update_service and delete_service by verb alone. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of update_service or create_product, no prerequisites, and no note about required permissions. The only routing signal is the verb 'create'.

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