Create a service dependency

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it requires operator write opt-in, mandates confirm:true, and warns that the action may notify recipients or change tenant data. This gives an agent a good sense of the mutation's impact, though it doesn't detail reversibility or exact consequences.

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: it states the action and endpoint, lists the body fields, gives a reference link, and then captures prerequisites and side effects. The opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but every other sentence earns its 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 write operation with a generic nested body and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, core body fields, authorization requirement, confirmation requirement, and side effects. It does not spell out response handling or validate the exact body shape, but the API reference link and annotations fill most of the gap.

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 covers all parameters, but the body parameter is a generic recursive JSON schema, so the description's explicit mention of serviceId and dependentServiceId adds real meaning. The confirm parameter's description also clarifies the require-true semantics. It stops short of specifying types or requiredness of the body fields, but the reference link and endpoint guidance compensate.

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 identifies a create operation on the service-dependencies resource via the POST endpoint and names the key body fields. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling modify/delete service-dependency tools beyond the verb 'create'.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'create'; there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over xmatters_modify_a_service_dependency or xmatters_delete_a_service_dependency. The description does provide important preconditions (operator write opt-in and confirm:true) and a side-effect warning, which helps an agent decide whether it is allowed to run it, but not which tool to pick.

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