Create inbound

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write nature is clear. The description adds valuable context by warning that the expected shape for settings/streamSettings/sniffing may vary by panel version, which suggests the tool validates against a version-specific schema. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate potential errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a concrete, actionable recommendation. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler, making it easy to read and process.

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 has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description does not describe return values or side effects, but the explicit recommendation to call get_inbound first effectively compensates for the missing schema details. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions, this is sufficient for most agents to use the tool correctly, though it could mention what the response contains or any implicit effects.

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 67%, and the schema already provides descriptions for port, remark, protocol, settings, sniffing, and streamSettings, including examples. The description itself does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond recommending to inspect an existing inbound, which indirectly helps with parameter values but does not add direct semantics. Since the coverage is moderate and the description only generically references the shape, this is an adequate but not exceptional contribution.

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 a new inbound') and the resource ('on the panel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_inbound or delete_inbound by the verb. It also adds context about the panel version, making the purpose 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 a clear usage recommendation: 'call get_inbound on a similar existing inbound first to see the exact shape expected.' This gives practical guidance for preparing the correct payload, which is especially useful given the version-specific schema concerns. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the recommendation implies a best practice that improves usability.

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