liara_create_disk

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. It states 'Create a new disk', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it affects app availability. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Create a new disk for an app'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., by hinting at the disk's purpose (storage).

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 of a creation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or what to expect upon success (e.g., returns a disk ID). For a tool that likely modifies infrastructure, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'Disk size in GB'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., mountPath must be unique) or constraints (e.g., size limits). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 disk for an app' states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('disk'), but it's vague about what a 'disk' entails in this context (e.g., storage volume, virtual disk) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'liara_create_bucket' or 'liara_create_snapshot', which might involve similar creation actions for different resources. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying existing disks), or related tools like 'liara_resize_disk' or 'liara_delete_disk'. Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately among many creation-related siblings.

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