Create Vrf

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms it creates a new row and specifies return formats (markdown/json). Adds the dry-run caveat. No contradictions. Could describe more side effects but adequate.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, return format. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient, no redundancy.

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 complexity (11 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, a usage guideline, and return format. Lacks domain context and explanation of when to use, but schema covers parameters. Adequate but not thorough.

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 64% and many parameters have descriptions. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond noting the return format 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?

The description states 'Create a new vrf in NetBox.' which is a clear verb+resource. It adds context that it adds a new row. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the update_vrf sibling tool, so not a 5.

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?

It advises 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' which is a specific guideline. But it does not provide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_vrf) or when not to use it.

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