Create Asset

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

Beyond annotations (which are minimal), the description adds behavioral context: it is a write operation that adds a row, requires user confirmation for dry-run, and specifies the need for exactly one hardware type. No contradictions with 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 paragraphs, each focused: purpose, dry-run advice, hardware type constraint, and return format. No superfluous sentences, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 complex tool with 26 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: creation action, dry-run sensitivity, hardware type constraint, and return format options. It does not explain the asset concept or relationships, but is adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

With 92% schema coverage, the description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity constraint among hardware type parameters (device_type, module_type, inventoryitem_type, rack_type), which is not obvious from the schema alone. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 states 'Create a new asset in NetBox' with a clear verb and resource. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling create tools like netbox_create_device, the specificity of 'asset' vs 'device' is evident from the tool name and context.

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?

Provides the important guideline to ask before calling for a dry-run, and the constraint that exactly one hardware type must be set. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_create_device, leaving usage context implied.

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