create_interface

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as potential impact on network connectivity, the role of apply_immediately, or reversibility. Given the annotations, the description's silence on side effects is a notable gap.

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, short sentence: 'Create (assign) a network interface.' It is front-loaded and includes the useful clarification of 'assign' in parentheses. No words are wasted, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite having a complete schema and annotations, the description is far too terse for a tool with 10 parameters and complex network implications. It fails to explain the tool's role among many interface-related siblings, the need for careful validation, or the effect of apply_immediately. The output schema helps with return values, but the high-level context is missing.

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, so every parameter (e.g., interface_port, typev4, ipaddr) is already documented. The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning or relationships. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 (assign) a network interface.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'assign' clarifies that this tool creates an interface by assigning a physical port. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like create_interface_bridge or create_interface_group, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or references to other tools (e.g., create_interface_bridge). This leaves the agent without guidance on choosing between related interface creation tools.

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