snmp_view_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose several key traits: the change is not persisted ("Does not save"), it is gated behind unlock, and it can be refused under three conditions. However, it does not state required authorization beyond the unlock gate, what the response contains, or whether the added subtree can be removed again, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose and the no-save caveat are front-loaded, then constraints, then the sibling alternative. A few clauses (the writable-column/excluded-entry list) are dense but each carries real refusal logic. The trailing note about the CLI syntax not being live-confirmed is a useful caveat rather than waste.

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 explained, and the description covers prerequisites, refusal cases, and the allowlist. What is missing is whether the call can be repeated on the same subtree and what happens on failure, minor for a two-parameter mutation.

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%, so the description must define the parameters, and it does define subtree concretely (an OID or alias from the fixed allowlist interfaces / ifmib / power-ethernet). view_name is only implied through "an SNMP read view" and its refusal conditions, not defined outright, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add one allow-listed included subtree to an SNMP read view") and immediately separates itself from the write-view sibling by naming snmp_write_view_create. The scope is narrow and unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ("Gate this in the hub with unlock") and explicit exclusions ("Refused for any view used as a write view, holding a writable column or an excluded entry"), then routes the agent to the correct alternative (snmp_write_view_create). This is when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance in full.

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