hosts_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 15 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (create operation) and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 creation tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'host' represents in Remnawave context, doesn't describe the creation process or response format, and provides no behavioral context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums where applicable. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which fits this case.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new host in Remnawave'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like hosts_delete, hosts_get, hosts_list, and hosts_update by specifying creation rather than other operations. However, it doesn't specify what a 'host' represents in this context, which prevents 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing config profiles or nodes to exist first), doesn't specify when creation is appropriate versus updating existing hosts, and doesn't reference related tools like hosts_update or config_profiles_list for obtaining required UUIDs.

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