iam_create_application

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: unlike compute resources, IAM applications do not receive managed tags, and this affects deletion behavior. This is valuable context that goes beyond the schema, but it does not cover other potential behaviors like return format or error conditions.

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 three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the next two explain a critical nuance. There is no fluff or 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the schema covers all parameters, the description adequately covers the unique behavioral context (tag injection, deletion implications). It does not explain prerequisites or return values, but those are covered elsewhere (schema for output, and permissions are typically implicit). The description is complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'tags' verbatim but does not elaborate on format, defaults, or constraints beyond schema.

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 starts with 'Create an IAM application,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling IAM tools like iam_create_api_key or iam_list_applications.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it does provide important usage guidance about the tag behavior and the requirement for SCW_ALLOW_DELETE_UNTAGGED=true, which informs the AI when deletion might be problematic. However, no alternative tools or prerequisites are mentioned.

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