Create Circuit_termination

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the dry-run caution and mentions return format, but does not disclose error behavior, uniqueness constraints, or other side effects. It adds some value beyond 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: three sentences plus a brief return note. The purpose is stated first, and every sentence adds value (purpose, caution, return format). No redundant information.

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 complexity of 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what a circuit_termination is, how required parameters (circuit, term_side) relate, and the meaning of optional fields like termination_type. The dry-run advice and return format note are helpful but insufficient.

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 69% (below 80%), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. Several schema parameters (e.g., pp_info, description, xconnect_id, mark_connected) lack descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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_termination in NetBox', specifying the verb ('Create') and the resource ('circuit_termination'). This directly matches the tool name and title, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 a guideline to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', but it does not explain when to use this create tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_circuit_termination or netbox_get_circuit_termination. No when/when-not or comparison to siblings is provided.

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