vsz_create_wlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it merely states 'Create a new WLAN in a zone' and lists parameters. It does not explain side effects (e.g., immediate broadcast), prerequisites (e.g., zone existence, permissions), or behavior on duplicate SSID/name. The only behavioral note is that passphrase is required for WPA security, which is more of a parameter dependency than an operational 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 docstring with a single-sentence summary followed by an Args list. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and does not waste words, though the formatting could be more compact. The Args list provides necessary parameter explanations without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, schema with no descriptions), the description covers parameter meanings but omits contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., zone must exist), error conditions, and operational consequences. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description is still somewhat sparse for a create operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a meaningful semantic for each of the 9 parameters. For instance, 'security_type: Security type (Open, WPA2, WPA3, WPA23_Mixed, WEP)' enumerates allowed values, and 'passphrase: PSK passphrase (required for WPA security)' clarifies a dependency. These meanings are absent from the schema, which only provides titles and types.

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 'Create a new WLAN in a zone.' This uses a specific verb (Create), resource (WLAN), and scope (in a zone), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vsz_update_wlan, vsz_delete_wlan, vsz_list_wlans, and vsz_enable_disable_wlan.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it list exclusions. Usage is implied by the action itself—creating a new WLAN—but it does not mention prerequisites like zone existence or name uniqueness.

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