Create Rir

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by mentioning the dry-run caution and the return format options (Markdown/JSON), which are not covered by 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?

Description is brief and front-loaded: purpose, then additional context (dry-run, return format). No superfluous words; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description mentions return format. It includes a dry-run caution, but does not elaborate on side effects or prerequisites. Still adequate given the high schema coverage.

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 high (86%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add further meaning to any parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new rir in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. The tool is distinct from siblings like netbox_get_rir (read), netbox_update_rir (update), and netbox_delete_rir (delete).

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?

Includes a guideline to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides cautionary context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or delete.

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