Add a Module to a Device

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the device is power-cycled, unsaved running-config is lost, and the call returns the newly created port names with a concrete example. That 'what gets destroyed' disclosure is exactly the context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot convey; the config loss is an indirect consequence of the power cycle, not of the additive module install, so this reads as added disclosure rather than a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the side effect and return value, then examples. The three natural-language example requests are slightly redundant given the model list already in the first sentence, but they usefully map user phrasing to the tool.

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?

Covers action, side effects, prerequisite lookup and the important return value; an output schema exists so return detail is a bonus rather than a requirement. The only real gap is module/slot compatibility guidance — it points at get_device_model_details for the slot but never says how to confirm a module is supported by the model.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal semantics beyond the schema — that module choice determines the resulting port names and that a slot path like '0/0' must be free — so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb + resource + target ('Install a hardware module ... into a free slot') with concrete model examples (HWIC-2T, NIM-2T, SFP) so the agent knows exactly what class of action this is. It is clearly separable from remove_module_from_device and add_device_to_network, which are the nearest confusable 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?

It states the precondition chain well: slot must be free, slot path can be looked up via get_device_model_details, and if a running-config must survive the caller should save first (implying save_device_configuration). What's missing is an explicit counterpart statement ('to remove, use remove_module_from_device'), though the sibling name makes the exclusion obvious.

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