create_rest_message

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by indicating a write operation. It adds the prerequisite condition but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling on duplicate names, validation of endpoint format, or effects of authentication_type choices. Since annotations lack detailed safety hints, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. The prerequisite is integrated as parenthetical information, keeping it brief without adding clutter. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate prerequisite on a new line), but it remains efficient and front-loaded.

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 the lack of output schema and the 5-parameter complexity, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., created record identifier), side effects, or how it differs from create_soap_message. The prerequisite is the only extra context. This leaves agents underinformed for a creation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already conveys their meanings. The description adds no additional context about parameter values, defaults, or dependencies. Thus, the description meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance it.

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 specifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('outbound REST Message definition'), making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes from similar tools like create_soap_message by naming the protocol. The prerequisite requirement is included but doesn't detract from core purpose clarity.

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 mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which provides some context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_soap_message or other creation tools. The name implies REST-specific use, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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