create_queue_type

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint and destructiveHint; the description adds no behavioral side-effect information such as write access requirements, idempotency, or persistence of the queue type on the router. The only added context is parameter format examples, which are not behavioral traits.

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 concise, with a single main sentence followed by a short, focused note block. All listed examples add value, and the front-loaded structure makes the core purpose immediately clear.

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 28 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully specify which options apply to each qdisc kind and what format/units are expected. It also doesn't mention the response/return value, though an output schema exists. The tool is moderately complex, so a more complete mapping would be needed.

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?

With 28 parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description carries the burden; it only explains a few parameters (pcq_rate, pcq_classifier, cake_rtt, fq_codel_target/interval) with example formats. Most parameters (e.g., cake_mpu, red_burst, fq_codel_quantum) remain unexplained, and the mapping between kind and applicable per-discipline params is not provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'Creates' and a resource 'queue type (qdisc)', which clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_queue_tree and create_simple_queue. It also specifies the domain (MikroTik) and that kind selects the discipline.

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 explains that kind selects the discipline and remaining params are per-discipline options, which helps when choosing parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related queue tools such as create_queue_tree or create_simple_queue, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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