Create a named MCP gateway

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

The description simply states 'Create', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false), but adds no behavioral details beyond that. No information about authorization requirements, side effects, or what happens on duplicate creation.

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?

Very concise, only two sentences. However, the second sentence ('Paperclip operation... Authorization class: board.') is technical and may not be useful for an AI agent, taking away from clarity.

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 complex tool with many nested parameters and an output schema (not provided), the description is minimal and incomplete. It does not explain what a 'named MCP gateway' is or how to use the parameters.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, failing to compensate for the lack of documentation.

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's purpose: 'Create a named MCP gateway.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_tools_gateways and pc_patch_tool_gateway_gateways_by_gateway_id.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when to create vs get or patch.

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