storage_gateway_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a resource but doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on failure. It also doesn't mention whether the gateway is immediately active or requires additional steps. 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 clear sections for args and returns, and it's reasonably concise. The parameter list is detailed but not bloated. It could be slightly tighter by removing the 'Returns' section since an output schema exists, but the structure is clear and scannable.

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 covers the main parameters and return value, but with no annotations and an output schema that is not shown in detail, it's missing behavioral context like permissions, idempotency, or post-creation steps. For a complex creation tool with nested objects, it's adequate but not 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 does a good job explaining each parameter, including nested structures for export_config and network_config, and provides examples for gateway_type and region. However, it doesn't fully specify all possible keys or constraints for nested objects, and tags is only briefly mentioned.

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 tool creates a new storage gateway, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the key parameters and their purposes, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like storage_gateway_update or storage_gateway_add_export. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it loses a point.

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 implies usage by showing required parameters and examples, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like storage_gateway_update or storage_gateway_add_export. There's no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would make this the right choice, so guidance is only implied.

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