vela_create_application

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

Annotations indicate it's a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds that it creates an app with component and env binding, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or behavior on duplicate names.

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 lines: one stating purpose, one giving API endpoint. No redundancy, highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (multiple required parameters, component creation, optional env binding) and lack of output schema details or error handling, the description is too minimal. It omits prerequisites (e.g., project existence) and behavioral details beyond creation.

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 tool description does not explain the top-level 'params' parameter or its nested properties, despite the schema having some field descriptions (though context says 0% coverage). The description implies the need for name, component, and env binding but lacks explicit mapping or constraints.

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 explicitly states it creates an application with the first component and optional environment binding, and provides the API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vela_list_applications or vela_deploy_application.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, as the only create-application tool among siblings, its usage is implied. Missing alternatives or prerequisites.

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