create_address_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a create operation and summarizes return values, but it does not cover permissions, duplicate-name behavior, or failure modes for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded and organized into purpose, parameters, address_data guidance, and returns. It is efficient, though it repeats some schema parameter names and could be slightly tighter.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers purpose, required inputs, optional vdom behavior, address_data fields, and expected returns. It still omits duplicate handling and permission requirements, which would fully round out the behavioral 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?

Top-level parameter descriptions already have 100% schema coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the nested address_data object by listing supported fields and their purposes, which the schema leaves generic via additionalProperties.

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: create a new address object on a FortiGate device. It also clarifies the object's role in firewall policies, distinguishing it from sibling operations like list, update, and delete address objects.

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 clearly frames the tool as adding a new network address object usable in security rules, which gives an agent a clear use context. It does not explicitly say when to use update_address_object instead or how to handle existing objects, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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