create_server

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the server is 'visible to all accounts', i.e. there is no private/owner-restricted visibility. It still omits permission requirements and any limits on how many servers can be created.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The primary action and its visibility scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by documenting the returned serverId and its downstream use.

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 one-parameter creation tool with a full annotation set, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, visibility, and the return value's usage even with no output schema. The remaining gap is operational detail — auth/permission needs and whether the created server can later be renamed or deleted.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Server name (max 64 characters)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the name parameter itself; it only mentions the returned serverId, which is not an input. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new communication server') and immediately scopes it with '(visible to all accounts)', which separates it from create_channel and from read-only siblings like list_servers. The follow-up sentence about creating channels with the returned serverId further pins down its place in the workflow.

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 implies the intended sequence (create server first, then use the returned serverId to create channels), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when not to use it, whether an existing server should be reused, or any prerequisites such as account/permission requirements.

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