gateway_create

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

Annotations already signal that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'Register a gateway' confirms a creation action. The description adds one useful behavioral rule: location is set only when coordinates are given. However, it does not disclose side effects, duplicate behavior, or other consequences beyond the annotations.

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 definition is one tightly structured sentence with the core action first and the behavioral caveat second. There is no filler or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter create operation with zero schema field descriptions, the description lacks enough detail to reliably populate required parameters or understand optional tags and stats_interval behavior. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics and usage context remain incomplete.

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 0%, and the description names none of the 9 parameters directly. Only 'coordinates' loosely maps to latitude, longitude, and altitude, while gateway_id, name, tenant_id, tags, stats_interval, and description remain semantically unexplained. This does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Register a gateway', which names an explicit action and resource. Since sibling tools include gateway_get, gateway_update, gateway_delete, and gateway_list, 'register' clearly identifies this as the gateway creation entry point.

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 verb 'Register' implies this tool is for new gateways, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with gateway_update for modifying existing gateways. It also does not mention conditions like tenant context or duplicate handling, so usage context is only implied.

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