Create Asn

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

Description states 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' which clarifies the mutating effect beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It also details return formats (markdown or JSON). No contradictions with annotations. Slightly lacking on side effects like uniqueness constraints.

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?

Description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: purpose, behavioral note, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return options. However, it lacks context such as uniqueness of ASN numbers, required permissions, or relationship to other objects (e.g., RIR). This is sufficient for a simple create tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 63%, and the description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The description of the return format is about output, not parameters. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema does most of the work.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create a new asn in NetBox,' which is a clear verb+resource pair. The tool name and title confirm the action, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_create_asn_range.

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?

Description advises to ask for a dry-run before calling, indicating caution for a write operation. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_asn or netbox_create_asn_range, nor does it specify prerequisites.

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