create_vlan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that dry_run defaults to a preview and that applying auto-backups. It does not cover permissions, irreversibility, or error behavior for a mutation tool, so it is only partially transparent.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the behavioral caveats follow. Slightly telegraphic wording ('auto-backup on apply') costs nothing but adds little polish.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the preview/backup notes cover key behavior. But for a write tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, more guidance on side effects and prerequisites would be needed for a complete definition.

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 0%, so description should compensate; it explains dry_run's preview meaning but says nothing about vlan_id range/constraints or name rules. It adds some value for one parameter only.

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 and resource ('Create a VLAN') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_vlan, list_vlans, and get_vlan_membership. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative sibling, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the dry_run preview note, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use delete_vlan or set_port_vlan_membership instead). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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