create_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('List a new service'), requires authentication ('Requires API key'), and has a global effect ('discoverable by AI agents worldwide'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if listing fails), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details. It's appropriately sized (three sentences) with minimal waste, though 'the the402.ai' has a typo ('the' duplicated). Each sentence adds value: action, parameters, and authentication requirement.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, key parameters, and authentication, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. For a creation tool with rich input schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description lists some parameters (name, description, pricing, category, input requirements) but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides—it merely echoes them without explaining interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('List a new service') and the resource ('on the the402.ai marketplace as a provider'), with specific details about what gets defined (name, description, pricing, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_service' or 'delete_service' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_plan'.

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 implies usage context ('as a provider', 'discoverable by AI agents worldwide') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires API key (provider account)'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_plan' or 'manage_product'. It provides some guidance but lacks clear when/when-not directives.

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