cdn_create_cdn_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new CDN zone' and lists parameters. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing zones are affected), idempotency, authentication/authorization requirements, rate limits, or any failure modes. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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 well-structured with an 'Args' section followed by 'Returns', and the action sentence is front-loaded. It is concise with no fluff. While it could be slightly shorter, it efficiently conveys the essential information without repetition.

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?

The description includes a 'Returns' section and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it omits behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., the origin domain must be valid and accessible), any limitations on the number of zones, and potential error conditions. For an 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations, this is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 8 parameters with brief one-line meanings (e.g., 'origin_scheme: Origin scheme (http or https)'), which adds some semantic value. However, it lacks details on formats, allowed values beyond the scheme hint, relationships between parameters, or defaults. It does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'CDN zone', distinguishing it from siblings like cdn_update_cdn_zone, cdn_delete_cdn_zone, and cdn_list_cdn_zones. The parameter list enumerates the configurable properties, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., need an origin domain), conditions that favor it over other creation tools, or scenarios where it should not be used. The verb 'create' implies the obvious use case, but no context or exclusions are provided.

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