expand_ip_pool

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it 'appends' ranges, and the notes clarify the exact format for ranges. It doesn't mention validation or failure modes but largely complements the annotations.

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 clear main sentence and a useful note section. The examples are valuable and not overly verbose. Slight redundancy in the notes (the first line is repeated in bullet format) but overall efficient.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tool is simple with 3 params, and the description covers the key nuance of range formatting. Missing info on the 'device' parameter's optionality, but the schema handles that. The sibling list shows related IP pool tools, but the description doesn't explicitly compare to them; still adequate for a low-to-medium complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. The description explains 'additional_ranges' with concrete hyphen-separated and comma-separated examples, which is essential. However, 'name' and 'device' are not described at all; the context implies name is pool identifier, but no explicit semantics.

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 expands an existing IP pool by appending additional address ranges, with an explicit verb ('expands') and resource ('IP pool'). It distinguishes itself from create_ip_pool/remove_ip_pool by focusing on expansion, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 implies usage: use when you need to add ranges to an existing pool, not create a new one. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or provide alternatives. The note about format gives practical guidance.

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