manage_dhcp_lease

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

While annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial context: 'clear permanently removes leases' and 'Runs in dry_run mode by default for clear/resend_ddns. Set dry_run=False to actually execute destructive actions.' This informs the agent of the tool's safety default and the irreversible nature of clear, going well beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, usage note, Args, Returns, Examples) and is front-loaded with purpose. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence contributes useful information, and the examples justify the length.

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 (9 parameters, 4 action modes, destructive behavior), the description covers all parameter semantics, safety defaults, alternatives, and usage examples. The presence of an output schema means the return value is already structurally documented, so no further return explanation is needed. This is a complete and robust description.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description explicitly defines every parameter (action, address, mac_address, hostname, state, space, resource_id, dry_run, limit). It adds meaning by explaining under what conditions each is required (e.g., 'space is required for clear/resend_ddns to resolve address') and provides concrete usage examples.

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 leases: list/search active leases, wipe leases, or resend DDNS updates', which clearly identifies the tool's resource (DHCP leases) and its operations. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling manage_dhcp by stating 'For DHCP configuration use manage_dhcp()'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and well differentiated.

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 explicit guidance: 'USE THIS for DHCP lease visibility and maintenance. For DHCP configuration use manage_dhcp().' It also includes multiple examples for each action, clarifying when to use list, get, clear, and resend_ddns. The dry_run warning further explains safe usage for destructive actions.

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