create_traffic_shaper

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the 'create' action. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent but not elaborated. No information is given about side effects, application of changes, or error conditions.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read.

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 the schema being thorough, the description lacks essential context about the role of traffic shaping in the broader system, when to choose this over create_traffic_limiter, and whether additional steps are needed. The existence of sibling tools like create_shaper_queue and update_traffic_shaper indicates relationships that are not explained. For a create operation with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information. According to the high-coverage baseline, this scores a 3.

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') and the resource ('traffic shaper') with a scope ('on an interface'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_traffic_shapers, update_traffic_shaper, and delete_traffic_shaper. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, relationships with shaper queues or traffic limiters, or whether this should be used with apply changes. The description is purely a definition.

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