snmp_community_create

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: the secret is never an argument and is redacted as [REDACTED] in output, the change is not saved, and the operation must be gated with a hub unlock. It also discloses a reliability caveat ('CLI syntax is not live-confirmed; see the README'), which is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot provide.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the action, and the remaining lines are short, single-purpose statements about the write_view requirement, secret handling, persistence, and the unlock gate. Slightly terse phrasing and the trailing README pointer cost a little, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead covers the things that schema cannot: persistence semantics, the auth/unlock prerequisite, secret redaction, and parameter constraints. For a 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, that is complete enough to call correctly.

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 0% and the schema carries no enum for 'access', so the description must compensate and does: view_name is identified as the read view, access is constrained to 'ro' or 'rw', and write_view is explained including its construction constraints ('only the writable columns, no per-port exclusions'). All three parameters gain meaning beyond their bare titles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a v2c community') and adds scope the name alone doesn't convey: the community is sourced from SWITCH_SNMP_COMMUNITY and bound to views. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings such as snmp_community_remove and snmp_write_view_create.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling that satisfies it: an 'rw' community needs a write_view built with snmp_write_view_create. It also flags the hub-unlock gate and that the call does not persist. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion, so it is strong context rather than a full decision rule.

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