Create Client

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important failure mode (web containers fail), but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, conflict behavior, or other side effects. The provided context is useful but incomplete.

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: the first states the core action and scope, the second delivers the critical caveat. Every word earns its place, and the most operational detail is front-loaded.

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 rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it provides the one non-obvious environmental constraint. It could add permission or duplicate-handling notes, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that container_id must reference a server container, not a web container. It wisely avoids repeating the well-documented client object details.

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 action (create), a specific resource (client), and a scope (workspace), with the added constraint that only server containers accept clients. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_client, delete_client, or list_clients.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when the tool is valid (server containers) and when it is not ('Creating one in a web container fails'). This is a direct usage condition that prevents a common mistake, and no alternative create-client sibling exists to confuse routing.

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