vnisAddFabricVnis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool adds VNIs (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or side effects. The schema shows read-only fields (e.g., 'enabled', 'id'), suggesting some fields are auto-generated, but the description doesn't explain this behavior.

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 brief (two sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the second sentence is redundant with schema information (how to pass arguments) and doesn't add value. It could be more front-loaded with critical usage information instead of basic syntax.

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 complexity (adding VNIs with nested objects like 'svis' and 'annotations'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a successful addition entails (e.g., returns VNI IDs), error handling, or interactions with other tools (e.g., 'fabricsCommitFabricCandidate' for changes). The schema covers inputs, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('fabricId' and 'vnis'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as examples of valid VNI configurations or constraints on 'fabricId'. It only provides a generic syntax example, which doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meanings.

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 action ('Add one or more VNIs') and identifies the resource (VNIs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vnisUpdateFabricVni' or 'vnisDeleteFabricVni' by specifying addition rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vnisAddFabricVniMembers', which adds members to existing VNIs rather than creating new VNIs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing fabric), exclusions (e.g., not for updating existing VNIs), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'vnisUpdateFabricVni' for modifications or 'vnisAddFabricVniMembers' for adding members. The second sentence is about syntax, not usage context.

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