Create a service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable context: requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, may notify recipients or change tenant data. This goes beyond the annotations and warns the agent about side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The body fields, reference link, and safety warnings are all included in a few sentences. Slight redundancy with the title ('Create a service') but the endpoint and field list earn their place.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, required body fields, the confirm requirement, and side-effect warnings. It doesn't describe the response format, but the reference link to the API docs fills that gap. The main missing piece is a note about what a successful response looks like, which is minor given the reference link.

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%, so the schema already documents the body and confirm parameters. The description lists the body fields (targetName, description, serviceTier, serviceType, ownedBy) which adds some meaning, but the body is a generic JSON payload reference and the description doesn't explain field formats or requirements beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Create a service'), includes the exact API endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/services), and lists the key body fields. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like xmatters_get_services, xmatters_modify_a_service, and xmatters_delete_a_service.

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 identifies the operation and endpoint, and the schema's confirm parameter explicitly states the operator must enable XMATTERS_ALLOW_WRITES. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of a create operation with write opt-in requirements is clear.

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