Create Cube

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readonly behavior, and the description adds value by disclosing that provisioning is asynchronous and that the Cube starts in a pending state. It also highlights the hourly billing consequence, which is important context beyond the structured annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. Key facts are front-loaded: the provisioning purpose, then asynchronous behavior, then the billing consequence. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers the critical operational detail that creation is asynchronous and begins with a pending state, which is essential for an agent to know how to proceed. It could mention how to check completion or that get_cube/list_cubes can be used to poll status, but the schema and sibling tools partly fill that gap.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters including defaults, caps, and format constraints. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Create (provision)') and names the exact resource ('a new Cube in a Space'), so an agent can clearly identify what this tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting the Cube resource rather than domains, snapshots, or TCP mappings.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to provision a new Cube, and it notes the important asynchronous and billing behaviors. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the resource scope is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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