create_namespace

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds important behavior: dry-run is default (dry_run=True), and the return shape differs between dry-run and actual creation. This goes beyond annotations to explain expected side effects.

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?

Well-structured with a clear header, return behavior, usage guidance, and parameter list. Though somewhat long, every sentence earns its place; the parameter list is justified given the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Comprehensive for a create tool: explains return values, dry-run behavior, where to get prerequisites, and follow-up confirmation. Even with 8 parameters and no output schema, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with meaningful details: units (MHz, MiB), sources (MoRef from check_vks_compatibility), defaults (dry_run=True), and omission semantics ('Omit for no limit'). This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a vSphere Namespace on a Supervisor Cluster' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning update_namespace for existing namespaces and get_namespace for confirmation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use which alternative: 'Use update_namespace instead when it already exists; confirm with get_namespace afterwards.' Also references prerequisite tools for parameter values (check_vks_compatibility, list_supervisor_storage_policies), providing clear usage context.

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