create_action_chain

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

Annotations already establish this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds useful context by explicitly requiring write permission and specifying that stages must reference existing DiagnosticSource or RemediationSource IDs. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the key requirement about stage references.

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 schema and annotations cover parameters and side-effect profile well. However, with no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the new chain ID) or any validation behavior, which leaves a small but relevant gap for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that stages are ordered and reference sources by ID, but this information is already present in the schema's property descriptions, so it adds little beyond what is structured.

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 ('Create an action chain') and a specific resource ('action chain'), then clarifies the composition ('from ordered diagnostic/remediation stages'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_diagnosticsource or update_action_chain.

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 the use case: creating a new action chain from existing diagnostic/remediation sources. It also notes a write-permission prerequisite, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over update_action_chain or other related tools.

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