vsz_create_zone

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a zone is created, with no mention of side effects, persistence, permission requirements, idempotency, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, starting with a clear one-line purpose followed by a well-organized Args list. Each parameter entry is short but informative. However, the Args list somewhat duplicates the schema, though it adds value through explanatory notes.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are not the main issue, but the description lacks usage context, behavioral implications, and any sense of when this tool is appropriate. For a creation operation with no annotations, this is incomplete: it doesn't mention host connectivity prerequisites, potential errors, or relationship to domains.

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 Args block adds useful meaning beyond the raw schema: 'host' is clarified as 'vSZ controller IP or hostname', 'country_code' is described as 'two-letter country code (e.g. "FR")', and optional flags are indicated. All five parameters receive at least some semantic explanation, though schema coverage is 0% and the description does not provide exhaustive format details.

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 states 'Create a new zone on the vSZ controller' with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('zone'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vsz_update_zone or vsz_list_zones. The additional Args block reinforces the purpose by identifying the key parameters.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vsz_update_zone or vsz_create_domain. The description simply states what the tool does, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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