create_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic creation action and source options, without mentioning side effects, required combination of repo/image, failure modes, or return values. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and source types, though the word 'new' adds little value. Still appropriately concise.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the tool returns, does not mention that repo or image is likely required despite being optional in the schema, and lacks guidance on prerequisites. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so no bonus is warranted.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new service') and the target resource ('in a project'), with explicit source types (GitHub repo or Docker image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_service or create_service_domain.

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?

The description implies usage via the verb 'create' and specifies the two possible inputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_service, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a project ID.

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