post_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a pool' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a creation 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Create a pool', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It efficiently conveys the basic action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'slots', 'description', or 'include_deferred' mean, their constraints, or how they affect pool creation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Create a pool' states the action (create) and resource (pool), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of pool (e.g., resource pool, connection pool) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_pool', 'patch_pool', or 'delete_pool'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to similar tools like 'patch_pool' for updates, or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for existing pools). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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