vibemk_create_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic bulk API behavior for multiple hosts, which is a useful trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., modifying monitoring state), permissions, prerequisites, or failure behavior. For a creation operation, this is minimal disclosure; it also omits that 'bake_agent' is only relevant in bulk mode (though schema covers it).

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key behavior about bulk API. It is concise with no filler, but it omits useful context like when to use it or what it returns. The length is appropriate for the limited information provided, though it could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.

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 complex oneOf schema with two modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or prerequisites. It also doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus the dedicated bulk tool, which is a notable gap given the overlapping sibling. The agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke it in all cases.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a note about automatic bulk API usage, which relates to the 'hosts' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. The 'bake_agent' parameter is described in the schema as 'bulk mode only', which is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already covers it, so the description adds little value here.

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 the action (Create host(s)), the resource (host(s)), and the effect (add to monitoring). It also notes the automatic bulk API usage for multiple hosts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vibemk_bulk_create_hosts', which could cause confusion, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vibemk_bulk_create_hosts' or 'vibemk_create_cluster_host'. It only mentions that multiple hosts automatically use the bulk API, implying it handles both modes, but doesn't state conditions for preferring a dedicated bulk tool or any exclusions. The oneOf schema hints at modes but doesn't give usage context.

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