manage_federation

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial context by explaining the dry_run parameter defaults to True and that delete only shows the resource unless set to False. It also notes that allocate_next is restricted to blocks. While it doesn't describe every mutation detail, it covers the most salient behavioral aspects beyond what annotations provide.

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 an intro, usage guidance, an Args list, Returns, and Examples. Every line serves a purpose, and the parameter list is compact yet informative. The examples are practical and demonstrate correct invocation. The length is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what each parameter means, and concrete examples. It even clarifies the default behavior of dry_run. Since an output schema exists, the brief 'Returns: Federation operation result' is sufficient. This description is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description manually documents all 10 parameters with clarifying context. It explains the role of each parameter (e.g., 'cidr: CIDR prefix length for allocate_next', 'address: CIDR address for blocks/delegations') and clarifies constraints like 'allocate_next only for blocks'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states it manages federated IPAM and enumerates the specific resource types (realms, blocks, delegations, pools, etc.). It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by saying 'USE THIS for federated/multi-site IPAM operations' and pointing to manage_network() for local IPAM and manage_ip_reservation() for reservations.

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 when-to-use guidance and names alternatives: 'USE THIS for federated/multi-site IPAM operations. For local IPAM use manage_network(). For IP reservations use manage_ip_reservation().' The included examples further illustrate common usage patterns, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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