create_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that versions are immutable and cannot be modified once created, which is important for an agent to understand before invoking the tool. It could mention permission requirements or side effects, but the core behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the key purpose, and organized with clear Args/Returns sections. The inclusion of 'service', which is not part of the input schema, adds minor noise but does not seriously harm readability.

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 relatively simple creation tool, the description covers purpose, immutability, all user-facing parameters, and the return type. It does not mention usage alternatives or prerequisites, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool successfully.

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 0% description coverage, so the Args section adds meaningful context for user_google_email, script_id, and description. The description of 'service' as an injected argument is potentially confusing since it does not appear in the input schema, but the remaining parameter descriptions help compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Creates') and the resource ('a new immutable version of a script project'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like list_versions or get_version, but the creation intent is unambiguous enough to differentiate it from them.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent needs to capture a snapshot of current script code. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or cases where this tool should not be used, leaving usage largely to inference.

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