create-rum-application

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as side effects, quota implications, or naming constraints. It does not contradict annotations but fails to leverage the openWorldHint to provide deeper insight.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the purpose with no extraneous text. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 no output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., the created application ID or metadata). The openWorldHint suggests side effects but none are described. For a simple creation tool, the description is minimal but lacks completeness for agents needing post-creation guidance.

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% with both parameters described. The description lists types in parentheses but this is redundant with the enum defined in the schema. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers, resulting in a baseline score.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new RUM application' followed by a list of supported types, clearly indicating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from related tools like update-rum-application, delete-rum-application, and list-rum-applications, providing specific verb+resource differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as update-rum-application or delete-rum-application. There is no mention of prerequisites, idempotency, or that listing existing apps should be done with list-rum-applications.

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