tdx-cmdb-create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, error conditions, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or redundant information.

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 creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'configuration item' is in the TDX context, doesn't provide usage context relative to sibling tools, and offers no behavioral guidance. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context about TDX's data model and this specific operation.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide any extra value like explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples.

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 ('Create') and resource ('TDX configuration item (CI)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like 'tdx-asset-create' or 'tdx-kb-create', which would require specifying what makes a CI distinct from assets or knowledge base entries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling creation tools (tdx-asset-create, tdx-kb-create, tdx-project-create, tdx-ticket-create), there's no indication of what distinguishes a 'configuration item' from these other entities or when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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