liara_create_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., bucket creation confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, response format), usage context, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information. This could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'permission'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, such as naming conventions for 'name', default values for 'region', or implications of 'permission' choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema 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 the action ('Create') and resource ('new storage bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a creation tool among siblings like 'liara_get_bucket' or 'liara_list_buckets', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'liara_create_app' or 'liara_create_database' beyond the resource type.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions, quotas), when not to use it (e.g., if a bucket already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'liara_list_buckets' for checking existing buckets or 'liara_delete_bucket' for removal.

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