add_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses authentication options, the preferred API-token method, defaults, and a brief return summary, but it omits important mutation behavior such as persistence, duplicate device_id handling, permission requirements, and side effects.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear. However, the parameter list largely duplicates the fully described input schema, so much of the text does not add new information; the returns section is useful because there is no output schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, all 9 parameters with defaults, authentication choices, and a basic return summary. Since there is no output schema, the returns note is helpful. The main remaining gap is mutation behavior and error/duplicate handling, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that username/password apply only when not using an API token, and that api_token is the preferred authentication method, which is not captured in the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding a new FortiGate device to the MCP server. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as remove_device and list_devices, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like test_device_connection or discover_vdoms. It also does not state prerequisites or the conditions under which this registration tool should be selected.

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