add_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: if interface labels are omitted, the next free interface on each node is used (creating one if needed). This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not cover other potential behaviors like error handling or duplicate link prevention.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a concrete example ('GigabitEthernet0/1'). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or padding.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description sufficiently explains the main behavior and parameter semantics. It lacks details about prerequisites or edge cases, but it is adequate for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning and optionality of iface_a and iface_b (interface labels, auto-selection when omitted). However, lab_id, node_a_id, and node_b_id are not explicitly described, though their names are fairly self-explanatory in context.

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 ('Connect') and clearly identifies the resource ('two nodes with a link'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_link and add_node by specifying the exact action and object.

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 clearly implies its use case (establishing a link between nodes) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools like remove_link provide implicit contrast, but no direct guidance is given.

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