Create Cable

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox', which aligns with annotations and clarifies the non-destructive but mutating nature. The dry-run suggestion adds some caution but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description 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 very concise with only three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a behavioral note (dry-run), and the third describes the return formats. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose 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 the tool has 14 parameters, nested objects ('a_terminations', 'b_terminations'), multiple enums, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on how to properly specify terminations, cable types, or how to handle required fields (though none are technically required, the tool effectively needs terminations to work). The return format is mentioned but the structure for 'json' is not described. More detailed context is needed for effective use.

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 description coverage is 50% (7 of 14 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema. For example, the important 'a_terminations' and 'b_terminations' parameters are documented in the schema but the description does not explain how to construct them or refer to their complexity. With moderate coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 cable in NetBox' as the primary action, using a specific verb and resource. It further explains 'This adds a new row to NetBox', reinforcing the purpose. Among sibling tools, there is netbox_get_cable and netbox_update_cable, so this is distinctly the create variant.

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 includes the guideline 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', indicating a need for user confirmation before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_get_cable for reading or netbox_update_cable for modifications. The guidance is minimal and lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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