Create Site

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) and adds behavioral context: it states that the tool creates a new row, advises asking before calling for dry-run, and specifies the return format (Markdown or JSON). No contradictions with 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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, behavioral note, and return format. The most critical information (purpose and dry-run instruction) is front-loaded. It could be slightly more streamlined by removing the redundant 'adds a new row' phrase.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and a safety instruction. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), error conditions (e.g., duplicate slug), or how parameters like custom_fields or tags work. Some additional context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning all parameters are already explained in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description starts with 'Create a new site in NetBox,' which clearly states the action and resource. It is not a tautology and effectively conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like netbox_update_site or netbox_delete_site, though the verb 'create' and the context make it clear.

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 provides a specific usage guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or get) or exclude any scenarios.

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