scf_create_system

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the specific authorization requirement 'editor+ role,' which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The note that systems can be linked to capabilities and evidence also clarifies the entity's relationships, though it stops short of describing side effects or return behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that establishe the action, the resource, the permission level, and a key relational capability without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 schema covers all nine parameters (including required fields, enums, and source lookups) and the description supplies the role requirement, the tool is callable with no critical gaps. The absence of an output schema means the return payload is not described, but for a simple CRUD create this is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., org_id says 'obtain from scf_list_organizations,' vendor_id and catalog_template_id have similar sourcing notes. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a system in the organization's infrastructure inventory,' which unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools such as scf_update_system, scf_list_systems, and scf_create_vendor. The parentetical '(write — editor+ role)' further clarifies the action type.

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 create verb plus the 'wite' marker give clear context for when tis tool applies, and the absence of an explicit alternative-routing note is acceptable because the sibling list contains scf_update_system for modifications and scf_list_systems for reads. It does not name those alternatives explicitly, but the usage context is unmistakeable.

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