create_configsource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the write-permission requirement ('requires write permission') and the overwrite behavior is documented in the schema. The description itself doesn't add much beyond the permission note, but that permission note is genuinely useful context for an agent deciding whether it can call this 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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action and format are front-loaded, the permission requirement is stated, and the sibling routing is given in the final sentence. Every 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 create tool with a nested definition object and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what format the definition must be in, where to get that format (export_configsource), the permission requirement, and the alternative tool for a different format. The overwrite parameter is documented in the schema. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't describe the return value or what happens on success, but for a create operation this is a relatively minor omission.

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 both parameters. The description adds the key semantic detail that 'definition' must be in REST API format and that this matches export_configsource output, which is valuable. However, it doesn't explain the structure of the nested definition object beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create'), a specific resource ('ConfigSource'), and the exact input format ('full definition dict' in 'REST API format'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling import_configsource by naming the alternative format (LM Exchange), so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (REST API format, same as export_configsource output) and when not to (for LM Exchange format, use import_configsource). This is a clear when/when-not routing rule that leaves nothing to inference.

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