Create Circuit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'This adds a new row to NetBox' aligns and adds a small behavioral detail. It also notes the return format. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, required permissions, or the fact that the action is not idempotent (though idempotentHint=false is provided).

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, consisting of three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose immediately, then adds a key precaution about dry-run, and finally specifies the return format. Every sentence adds essential info with no fluff.

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 tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the return format (markdown or JSON) and the dry-run caution. It does not explain typical usage patterns, prerequisites (e.g., provider and type IDs must exist), or how the tool fits into common workflows. This leaves the agent to infer missing context from parameter names and 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?

With 64% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides some parameter documentation. The tool description adds no new information about parameters, relying entirely on the schema. It does not clarify how parameters like custom_fields or provider_account should be used, nor does it compensate for the 36% of parameters with missing descriptions in the schema.

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 circuit in NetBox' and reinforces with 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_update_circuit and netbox_get_circuit by focusing solely on creation.

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 before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides a basic precaution for using the tool. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use update or delete circuit tools, or how to prepare required IDs.

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