firewall_service_create

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

With no annotations, the description solely carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' without mentioning idempotency, duplicate handling, permission needs, or side effects. The output schema exists but isn't referenced.

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 clear sentence, no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and thorough parameter documentation, the description is minimally complete for a simple create. However, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., overwrite vs. error on duplicate) that would improve completeness.

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% with adequate parameter descriptions. The tool's description adds no extra meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new custom service object' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list and get, but does not explicitly differentiate from other create tools (e.g., firewall_address_create).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to modify an existing service). No context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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