add_static_nat

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

Discloses the key behavioral trait annotations do not capture: the operation is asynchronous and status must be checked via check_task. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and gives the agent a concrete post-invocation action. No failure modes or extra side effects are mentioned, but the async note carries the main transparency burden.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first gives purpose, the second the async status flow. The only waste is the parenthesized '(nat/add_static_nat)' which repeats the tool's own name; otherwise every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, it covers what, why, and the post-invocation status flow. But with no output schema, the response shape is unstated (e.g., whether it returns a task ID to feed to check_task), and prerequisites such as IPMI being available on the server are left implicit.

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 100% — id is documented as the server ID and confirm as a required true flag — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only contextual color (the IPMI target) rather than new parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (static DNAT to the IPMI server), plus the concrete outcome: a public IP for IPMI access. The add-vs-remove contrast with siblings like remove_static_nat, clear_static_nat, and drop_nat is easy for an agent to read. The parenthesized API path is mildly tautological but does not muddy the meaning.

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 intended scenario (exposing IPMI through a public IP) is implied by the purpose statement, but the description never says when to use this tool over its NAT-management siblings or gives any exclusions. An agent must infer that 'add' versus 'remove/clear/drop' is the routing cue.

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