action_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a concrete filesystem effect (creating a folder with __main__.py and a module file), which is useful. However, it does not describe whether the operation is destructive, whether it fails if the endpoint already exists, or what permissions/setup are required beyond the schema parameters.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a precise implementation detail about what is created. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple scaffold tool with a rich input schema covering both parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by noting the relationship to sibling tools and any failure behavior if the endpoint already exists, but these are not essential for the basic intended usage.

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 the schema already fully documents both 'endpoint' and 'public' with patterns, types, defaults, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new API endpoint' and names exactly what is produced ('action folder with __main__.py and module file'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools that add resources to existing actions (e.g., action_add_milvus), since the focus is on creating the initial endpoint scaffold.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that action_add_* tools are for extending an existing action, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions that would route an agent to action_invoke or auth_setup. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and siblings.

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