Create a device name

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, may notify recipients, and may change tenant data. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 first sentence and endpoint are clear, but the description includes confusing internal notes about JavaScript/Python requests, cURL examples, and 'C12' that do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly. These should be trimmed or clarified.

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 destructive mutation with a generic body schema, the description provides endpoint, reference, required approval fields, prerequisites, and side effects. There is no output schema, but for a mutation the description is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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's body parameter is a generic anyOf freeform blob, so the description compensates by naming the intended body fields: deviceType, name, description, privileged. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% but shallow, the description adds real value.

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 and resource: 'Create a device name' via POST /api/xm/1/device-names. It is clearly distinct from siblings like xmatters_create_a_device, xmatters_modify_a_device_name, and xmatters_delete_a_device_name.

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 useful context—operator write opt-in, confirm:true, possible recipient notification—but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is strongly implied by the name and endpoint, but no direct routing guidance is given.

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