make_lease_static

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and repeatable. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the effect (device keeps its address) and that it applies to dynamic leases. This provides value beyond the structured fields without contradiction.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and purpose, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency and safety, and an output schema presumably providing return info, this description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and effect. Minor gaps (e.g., comment usage) are not critical given the simplicity and existing schema hints.

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 description does not mention any parameters. The schema covers lease_id with a description (from list_dhcp_leases), but comment has no description, and schema coverage is only 50%. Since coverage is moderate and the description adds nothing about parameters, the agent lacks full understanding of parameter semantics (e.g., what comment is for).

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 a specific action ('Pin') on a specific resource ('a dynamic DHCP lease') with a clear outcome ('so the device keeps its address'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_dhcp_leases (which lists) and add_dns_static (which handles DNS), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use: when you have a dynamic DHCP lease you want to keep a fixed address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'dynamic lease' vs. static is understood. No prerequisites are stated, though the schema hints at getting the lease id from list_dhcp_leases. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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