create_cms_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a new CMS file' and lists types; it does not disclose failure modes, permissions, whether existing names are overwritten, or what the response looks like. Minimal for a mutation tool.

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, direct, no filler. The type list earns its place by clarifying valid values 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?

Low complexity, schema fully covers parameters and default value. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description omits return/error behavior and usage context; it is acceptable but not complete.

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 already documents all three params with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description's type list repeats the enum. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Clearly states 'Create a new CMS file' with a specific verb and resource. Listing types ('http_function', 'jobs_config', 'default') distinguishes this from update_cms_file and other sibling tools.

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?

Implied usage: use to create new CMS files; the types hint at specialized file kinds. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this over update_cms_file or http_function-specific tools, nor when not to use it.

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