create_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the automation scope (Netbox, NPM, DNS, monitoring, backups) but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or failure modes. The mutating nature of 'create and provision' is implied but not detailed, and no mention is made of long-running operations or external system impacts.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and includes a useful parenthetical about automation targets. However, it could include a bit more actionable detail (e.g., output or when to use) without becoming verbose, so it is slightly under-specified.

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 complex provisioning tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a CTID or success message), how long provisioning takes, or dependencies on sibling tools like get_available_ctid. The agent lacks a clear picture of the full operation, side effects, and follow-up actions.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema—it only summarizes the overall purpose. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool creates and provisions a new LXC container, and enumerates the automation targets (Netbox, NPM, DNS, monitoring, backups). This distinguishes it from list/status siblings like list_containers and get_vm_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with provision_stack. The verb+resource is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as provision_stack or get_available_ctid. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a free CTID), exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the name.

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