add_service_object

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that the object is staged in candidate config and requires a commit to activate. This is critical lifecycle behavior that the agent would not otherwise know.

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 efficient sentence with the [MODIFIES CONFIG] marker front-loaded and the staging/commit caveat appended. Every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple config-creation tool, the description captures the key operating context: it modifies config, stages changes, and requires commit. The schema covers all parameters, so no parameter details are missing; absence of an output schema is acceptable given the simple create semantics, though alternatives are not addressed.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's mention of port/range and protocol adds no semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('a TCP or UDP service object') and specifies scope ('with a port or port range'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_service_group and add_address_object.

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 context by stating what object is created, but it does not explicitly define when to use this tool versus add_service_group or other add_* siblings. It does add the post-creation step ('requires commit to activate'), which is useful, but there is no when-not or alternative guidance.

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