Create Interface

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' confirming the creation action. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate names, required permissions, or any irreversible side effects. The dry-run note partially addresses behavioral awareness.

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 concise with three clear sentences: purpose, behavioral note (dry-run), and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 26 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits key context such as: interfaces are created for a device (implied by required device_id), the relationship to other NetBox objects (e.g., VLANs, LAGs), and typical usage patterns. The dry-run note and return format are helpful but do not compensate for the lack of high-level parameter guidance.

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 65%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not highlight required parameters (device_id, name, type) or explain the response_format parameter's role. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 interface in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate between device interfaces and VM interfaces, though sibling tools include netbox_create_vm_interface, so the distinction is implicit. The name 'netbox_create_interface' implies device interfaces, but the description could explicitly mention 'device interface' to avoid ambiguity.

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: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which is useful for cautious execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_interface or netbox_create_vm_interface. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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