create_vlan

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate that it is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it adds no behavioral context, such as whether changes apply immediately (despite the apply_immediately parameter) or whether a separate apply step is required.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It earns a high score for brevity, though it may be too terse to fully support tool selection, losing one point for lack of structure.

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?

The tool is a mutation with 5 parameters and an output schema, yet the description provides no contextual completeness beyond the bare action. It omits when to use, side effects, or relationship to VLAN management operations, leaving the agent to infer context from siblings and schema.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, including descriptions for parent_interface, tag, pcp, descr, and apply_immediately. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 'Create a VLAN' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_vlan', 'delete_vlan', and 'search_vlans'. However, it lacks additional detail such as the parent interface constraint or that it creates a VLAN on a physical interface.

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, such as when to prefer create_vlan over create_interface or update_vlan. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about network configuration workflows.

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