hosts_create_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it says the operation is a POST create but not that it is a write/mutation, what permissions are required, or that a confirmation gate (confirm) applies. For a create operation with a deeply nested, complex body, this is a significant gap.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. The valuable content is one line; the route and "Tags: Hosts Controller" fragments add no decision-relevant information and only pad the string.

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 a large nested input object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least describe the create semantics and confirmation behavior. It leaves the agent without enough context to call the tool confidently beyond the bare verb.

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 50%; only the confirm parameter is documented (in the schema, not the description). The description adds zero parameter meaning, and does not explain the required body envelope or its key sub-objects (inbound, mapper, internalSquads) despite their complexity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new host") and the underlying route POST /api/hosts makes the mutation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from hosts_update_host / hosts_delete_host by name alone, but adds no scope or context about what a host is or how it relates to inbounds/config profiles.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a config profile inbound UUID first), and no mention of alternatives such as hosts_update_host or hosts_bulk_actions_*. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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