liara_create_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new app' implies a write operation that likely mutates state, but it fails to describe critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on success (e.g., app deployment, resource allocation), potential side effects (e.g., billing implications), or error conditions. This lack of information is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it sacrifices necessary detail for clarity and completeness. While efficient, it lacks the depth needed for effective tool use, slightly reducing its utility despite the clean structure.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., app ID, status), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., needing a valid planID). For a creation tool in a rich sibling set, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable agent use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., name format, platform enum, planID, optional region). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how platform affects deployment) or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the documentation burden adequately.

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 'Create a new app' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'liara_create_app'. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('app'), but does not differentiate from siblings like 'liara_create_database' or 'liara_create_vm'—it lacks details on what an 'app' entails in this context (e.g., a web application, containerized service). This minimal statement fails to provide meaningful distinction or clarity beyond the obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a plan or platform selection), exclusions (e.g., when not to create an app), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'liara_list_apps' for checking existing apps. This absence leaves the agent without context for decision-making, risking incorrect or redundant invocations.

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