create_wireless_security_profile

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

The description adds some context by noting the tool is legacy and unsupported in v7.x, which hints at potential failure or incompatibility. However, it does not disclose actual behavior, side effects, or error outcomes, leaving the agent without a clear picture of what happens when invoked. Annotations are minimal and do not cover this.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains a single sentence that offers little actionable value. It is not well-structured for useful consumption.

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?

For a creation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what inputs mean, or what the output/behavior will be. The legacy/unsupported warning is the only context, but it is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 description contains no information about the parameters 'name' and 'device'. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema provides only basic type/required information. The description does not compensate at all.

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 never states what the tool does. It only says 'Legacy function - not supported in RouterOS v7.x', which does not describe the action or resource involved. The name/title imply creation of a wireless security profile, but the description is vague and potentially misleading.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to choose alternatives. It mentions 'not supported' but does not explicitly say to avoid it or suggest a replacement, despite the presence of sibling tools like set_wireless_security_profile or list_wireless_security_profiles.

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