Create Asn_range

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

Annotations provide basic read/write and idempotency hints. The description adds value by noting that the tool creates a new database row and instructs to ask for a dry-run, which helps the agent understand the mutating behavior. It does not contradict 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 short and to the point, with no filler. The purpose, usage note, and return format are presented efficiently in two concise paragraphs.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, dry-run ask, and return format with guidance on choosing between markdown and JSON. It could mention that an RIR must exist, but schema already covers required fields. Overall it is fairly complete given the schema richness.

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 80% and the description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Create a new asn_range in NetBox,' specifying the verb and resource. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from netbox_create_asn, the tool name and description make the resource type unambiguous among siblings.

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 advises to ask for a dry-run before calling, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_create_asn or netbox_update_asn_range, and does not outline prerequisites or scenarios.

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