wafle_gateways_create

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: false and destructiveHint: false, so the agent knows it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about credential requirements and the follow-up test step, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., creation of an inactive gateway, behavior on duplicate names, or permission requirements). This is a gap for a create tool with no output schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and uses a bullet list to convey type-specific requirements. Every sentence provides actionable information; the follow-up test instruction is valuable and not redundant.

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 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the type-specific fields well but omits what the tool returns (e.g., the created gateway object or ID). The guidance about testing is helpful, but the missing return-value information makes it incomplete for an agent that must handle the result.

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 only 38%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It adds critical semantics by mapping each `type` to required `creds` and `meta` fields, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It does not explain `name`, `currency`, or `active` beyond schema defaults, but the schema already provides basic types and defaults for those.

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 opens with 'Create a new gateway', using a specific verb and resource, and the type list distinguishes it from siblings like wafle_gateways_delete, wafle_gateways_update, and wafle_gateways_test. The scope is immediately clear.

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?

Provides clear context by listing provider-specific requirements and explicitly instructs to run wafle_gateways_test 'before pointing a store at it.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer create over update or when creation should be avoided, though the sibling set makes this implicit.

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