add_static_nat

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond annotations: the operation is asynchronous and status must be checked via check_task. This is valuable context that annotations do not provide. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the API path is included, and the async behavior is stated compactly. Every word 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 simple two-parameter asynchronous action, the description gives enough context: what it creates, for which server type, and how to track completion. No output schema exists, and the description appropriately points to check_task rather than attempting to describe return values.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description does not add significant new meaning to id or confirm beyond saying the DNAT is for IPMI, which is useful but not essential.

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 static DNAT to IPMI server') and its purpose (public IP for IPMI access). It names the method path and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like remove_static_nat and clear_static_nat.

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 implies when to use it: whenever a static DNAT/public IP is needed for IPMI access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or identify alternatives such as add_ipmi_user or remove_static_nat.

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