manage_dhcp

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable safety context by documenting the dry_run parameter ('If True (default), delete shows resource only. Set False to execute.'), a behavioral trait not present in annotations. It also clarifies special action assignments like 'bulk_create for mac_item' and 'link/delink for config_profile'. However, it could further disclose permission requirements or side effects of updates, but the dry-run disclosure substantially raises transparency beyond 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?

Despite its length, the description is well-structured into Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence adds information, with no filler. Front-loaded purpose and usage guidance make key information immediately accessible. The format is appropriate for a tool with 12 resource types and 15 parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all parameters, special constraints (dry_run, bulk_create/link/delink), includes extensive examples, and provides alternate tool guidance. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in prose, and the description still notes 'Returns: DHCP operation result'.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides semantics for all 15 parameters, linking each to the relevant resource type/action (e.g., 'mode: HA group mode (e.g., "active-active", "active-passive") — for ha_group create'). The examples further clarify parameter usage, making the tool usable without schema property descriptions.

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 opens with 'Manage DHCP configuration' and enumerates 12 resource types, clearly distinguishing it from siblings by explicitly directing IP reservations to manage_ip_reservation() and network topology to manage_network(). The verb and resource scope are 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS for DHCP-specific CRUD' and names two alternative tools for adjacent concerns. Examples illustrate typical calls across multiple resource types and actions, giving the agent clear context for when to choose this tool over siblings.

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