create_wireless_interface

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

The annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior and closed-world semantics. The description adds the behavioral trait that it 'auto-detects RouterOS v6/v7 syntax', which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other aspects like idempotency, error behavior, or prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a reasonable contribution.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and the added detail about auto-detection is valuable. No waste or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations providing safety information, the description does not need to explain return values or side effects. The purpose is clear, and the auto-detection note adds context. However, given the high number of parameters and zero parameter coverage, the description feels incomplete for guiding invocation without relying entirely on the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no parameter information. There are 11 parameters, and the description does not mention even the required 'name' or any optional ones. The schema itself has titles and enums but no descriptions, so the agent gets no additional meaning from the description beyond what the raw schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Creates a wireless interface on the MikroTik device'. It specifies the verb (creates), the resource (wireless interface), and the scope (MikroTik device). It also adds a distinguishing detail about auto-detecting RouterOS v6/v7 syntax, which sets it apart from siblings like create_wireless_security_profile or create_vlan_interface.

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 clear context: the tool is for creating wireless interfaces on MikroTik. This makes it obvious when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use update_wireless_interface instead). Thus it has clear context but no exclusionary guidance.

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