create_namespace

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that dry_run=True is the default, which is critical behavioral info. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, an important note about dry-run, and a bullet-style list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, required parameters, optional parameters, and the dry-run default. It omits explanation of description and target, but the context from sibling tools (e.g., get_namespace) provides some completeness. Overall sufficient for correct usage.

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 description explains 6 of 8 parameters (name, cluster_id, storage_policy, cpu_limit, memory_limit_mib, dry_run), providing useful details like name format and where to get cluster_id/storage_policy. It does not explain description or target. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant value.

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 starts with '[WRITE] Create a vSphere Namespace' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_namespace, update_namespace, and list_namespaces. The dry-run behavior is emphasized.

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 tells users to set dry_run=False to actually create and suggests using get_supervisor_status and list_supervisor_storage_policies to find required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_namespace. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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