create_vlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Create a new VLAN' and does not mention side effects, validation rules, default values (e.g., archived flag), idempotency, or required permissions. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral disclosure beyond the word 'create'.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing no value beyond a basic action statement. It is not overly verbose, but it does not earn its place by adding meaningful 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. There is no mention of what the tool returns, any uniqueness constraints, potential errors, or expected behavior on success. The agent has almost no context to correctly invoke this tool beyond the schema's raw field names.

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 coverage is extremely low at 11% (only vlan_id has a description). The description adds no parameter details, leaving eight of nine fields (name, company_id, notes, archived, etc.) unexplained. Required fields like company_id are not described anywhere. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema, making parameter usage nearly impossible for the agent.

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 'Create a new VLAN' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (VLAN), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_vlan' or 'list_vlans', but the verb 'create' inherently distinguishes it from those. Since it lacks any detail about what the VLAN creation entails, it stops short of a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_vlan' or 'list_vlans'. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields, or scenarios where this tool should be chosen. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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