Create volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Create a new Longhorn volume' only restates the operation implied by the tool name. It does not disclose whether creation is asynchronous, whether a duplicate name causes an error, what side effects occur, or how the agent can confirm the volume is ready. The documentation link partially mitigates this, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentences with zero filler: the purpose statement is front-loaded and the documentation reference is appended where it belongs. Every word earns its place, and the doc link is a high-value addition rather than noise. It is not a 5 because it is so thin that it borders on under-specification for a 12-parameter tool.

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 complexity — 12 parameters, 3 required, a nested 'extra' merge object, no output schema, and no annotations — a two-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly or interpret the result. The description does not clarify the expected return value, the merge semantics of 'extra', or the conditions under which creation fails or succeeds.

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 only 42%, leaving 7 of 12 parameters (name, backingImage, dataLocality, diskSelector, nodeSelector, numberOfReplicas, staleReplicaTimeout) undocumented, and the description does nothing to compensate — it mentions no parameters at all. The schema itself covers size, extra, frontend, accessMode, and fromBackup, but the description's job of filling the coverage gaps is entirely unmet.

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 Longhorn volume' — naming the exact external system and item type, which distinguishes it from the many sibling operations like volume_list, volume_get, volume_delete, and the snapshot/backup creation tools. It adds 'new' and 'Longhorn' beyond the title, confirming it creates a fresh volume rather than a derived artifact. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with related creation tools such as volume_snapshot_create or volume_pv_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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as a healthy cluster or sufficient storage. The only usage signal is the verb 'create' plus an external documentation link that the agent must fetch to learn anything further. No guidance is given for when volume_create is the wrong choice.

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