create_partitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible nature of increasing partitions, which is key. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like need for topic existence, permission requirements, or whether it affects existing partitions.

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 sentences, zero fluff, directly states purpose and a key note. Efficient and well-structured with no extraneous information.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema exists, but the description lacks details like prerequisites (topic must exist), exact behavior of new_total_count (replace or add), and error conditions. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters 'topic_name' or 'new_total_count' beyond the context. An agent needs to infer that 'new_total_count' means the desired total count, but no details on constraints like must be greater than current count.

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 verb 'Increases' and the resource 'partitions for a topic'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_topic or alter_configs by focusing solely on partition count increase.

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 provides a constraint (partition count can only be increased) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like alter_configs or when it's inappropriate. No explicit guidance on context.

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