post_user_terminals

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description confirms this by stating it adds (creates) without starting service. It adds value by specifying required permission ('Device management, Edit') and the nuance of not starting service, which goes beyond annotations.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and permission, second explains limitation, third covers prerequisite. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, limitations, and prerequisites. It does not explain return values, but this is acceptable for a create operation without an output schema.

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 covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, including an example. The description adds semantic value by listing acceptable formats for deviceId (user terminal Id, kit serial number, dish serial number) and includes an example, aiding correct usage.

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 ('Add user terminal to account'), specifies the key constraint ('won't start service'), and differentiates from sibling tools like delete_user_terminals_by_device_id and post_user_terminals_by_device_id_reboot. It also explains the prerequisite for service line assignment.

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 explicitly states that the tool adds a terminal without starting service, and notes that terminals must be on the account before being added to a service line. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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