create_tier1_gateway

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

The description states 'The same tier1_id overwrites (PUT),' which implies an idempotent PUT-like behavior. However, the annotation idempotentHint is false. This directly contradicts the annotation, so per the rubric the score must be 1.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage context, behavioral notes, return/verification info, and a detailed Args list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, return format, verification via get_tier1_gateway, and important consequences (e.g., unreachable subnets without route_advertisement). It provides complete context to select and invoke the tool correctly among many siblings.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section thoroughly explains each parameter: format ('alphanumerics, hyphens, underscores'), default behavior (tier0_path omission), requirements (edge_cluster_path for NAT), and exact enum values for route_advertisement. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Tier-1 gateway to route segments, optionally uplinked to a Tier-0.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_segment and update_tier1_gateway by stating the exact purpose.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before create_segment when the segment needs routing; get tier0_path from list_tier0_gateways and edge_cluster_path from list_edge_clusters first.' It also mentions the alternative of updating later, giving clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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