add_static_dhcp_lease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares that this is a write operation requiring a specific environment variable, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing leases), error conditions, or the outcome of the operation. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, with the purpose stated first, followed by a clear requirement and parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required env variable, parameter explanations. However, it lacks information about the response or any post-creation state, which could be useful for an agent to confirm success.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by providing examples for each parameter and indicating which are required and optional. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could detail format constraints for MAC addresses.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: pinning a static IP to a MAC address (static DHCP lease). It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also perform write operations, though the context of 'static DHCP lease' is unique among the listed siblings.

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 includes a prerequisite ('BUTUH MIKROCLAW_ALLOW_WRITE=true'), which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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