attach_carrier_subscriber_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses that confirm must be true to apply and dry_run previews without applying, which are valuable invocation-safety traits. However, it omits authentication requirements, reversibility, side effects on existing attachments, and error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is cleanly structured, with no rambling. However, the Returns line is redundant with the output schema and the phantom 'settings' argument is wasted text, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and only 20% schema coverage, the description explains the attach action and the confirm/dry_run contract. It still leaves gaps around permissions, failure modes, and the relationship to detach_carrier_subscriber_host, so it is not fully complete for an agent to invoke safely.

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 20% (only controller is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful confirm/dry_run rules and marks host_id as required, but subscriber_id/host_id definitions are tautological, controller is left to the schema, and 'settings' is mentioned despite not existing in the schema, creating confusion.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Attach'), resource ('gateway host'), and target ('UniFi Carrier Fabric subscriber'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling detach_carrier_subscriber_host or state exclusions, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as detach_carrier_subscriber_host or update_carrier_subscriber. The only usage cue is the implied purpose of attaching a host, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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