Create a new CMS file for a WebCake storefront, choosing an HTTP function, jobs config, or default type with JavaScript or JSON content.
Create a new CMS file. Types: "http_function", "jobs_config", "default"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | File name | |
| type | No | File type | default |
| content | Yes | Code content (JavaScript or JSON) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the file-type taxonomy but omits important behavior such as what happens if the file already exists, whether creation overwrites, or any permission requirements. It adds modest value beyond the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and no filler. The type list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, which slightly dilutes conciseness.
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 create tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves key questions unanswered: collision/overwrite behavior, required permissions, and where the file lands. It covers the what but not the surrounding context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the type enum that the schema already defines, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond it. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new CMS file") that an agent can distinguish from update_cms_file and edit_http_function. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, but the create-vs-update distinction is clear from the verb alone.
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 on when to use this versus update_cms_file, edit_http_function, or save_file_version, and no prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.